EBA proposed the implementation of an EU-wide floor methodology for calibration of other systemically important institution (O-SII) buffer rates. The proposed methodology included in the report aims to strengthen the stability of the banking sector and avoid the under-calibration of O-SII capital buffer rates, while allowing the relevant authorities to consider national banking-sector specificities. The proposed methodology will inform the EC legislative initiatives that could shape the introduction of such an EU-wide floor. In this report, EBA recommends introduction of the EU‐wide floor methodology in the EU framework, ideally by 2022.
Pursuing the mandate of updated Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5) for EBA to report to EC on the appropriate methodology for the design and calibration of O‐SII buffer rates, the report proposes a floor methodology to be implemented in EU. The methodology is proposed not with the aim of advising national authorities to set their O‐SII buffer rates specifically at this floor, but rather to use it as a fundamental principle and lower bound for their final buffer rate decisions. The introduction of this EU‐wide floor methodology would provide an important safeguard against potential under‐calibration of the O‐SII buffers, thus promoting financial stability across EU. In the context of withstanding future shocks caused by the aftermath of the pandemic crisis, this floor methodology would strengthen the prospects of ensuring a minimum level playing field across systemically important institutions in EU. EBA also published a user-friendly data visualization tool that will allow stakeholders to better understand and navigate the charts, tables, and most of the country-level data contributing to the findings and conclusions included in the report.
EU co‐legislators could issue a legal mandate for EBA to cover both the identification process (currently framed by EBA guidelines) and the buffer calibration process. As explained in the report, the floor methodology should, thus, be based on O‐SII scores resulting from the first stage of the identification process, for consistency and comparability reasons. Notwithstanding any substantial review of the macro-prudential toolkit in EU, this single mandate would undoubtedly contribute to fostering increasing harmonization of macro-prudential supervisory practices in EU with regard to this structural capital buffer of an idiosyncratic nature, which is naturally less prone to changes over the course of the economic cycle or short‐term fluctuations. Should the mandate to EBA require EBA to draft technical standards on the appropriate methodology to calibrate O‐SII buffer rates, it would seem unbalanced to keep the O‐SII identification process framed by EBA guidelines.
With the proposed floor methodology, all EU institutions identified as O-SIIs will be assigned a non-zero percent buffer rate. National authorities will still retain the ability to set higher O-SII buffer rates than the prescribed floor and are encouraged to do so where deemed appropriate. At present, no harmonized methodology exists at the EU level to calibrate O-SII buffer rates. Therefore, the recommendations included in the report do not bear immediate consequences for the banking sector in EU and should be seen as a preparatory step to inform EU co-legislators in view of legislative initiatives to design and operationalize an EU-wide methodology for the calibration of O-SII buffer rates. Once the floor is implemented, EBA suggests a first reassessment of this floor methodology after two years of implementation. An earlier assessment of the floor methodology might be undertaken given exceptional circumstances.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, O-SII, CRD5, Systemic Risk, Regulatory Capital, Basel, Macro-Prudential Policy, Capital Buffer, EBA
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).
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).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
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.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.