ECB Updates SREP Methodology Booklet for Less Significant Institutions
ECB updated the booklet on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) methodology for less significant institutions. This common SREP methodology for less significant institutions is based on the EBA SREP Guidelines and builds on the methodology for significant institutions and existing national SREP methodologies. The national competent authorities are implementing the harmonized SREP methodology for less significant institutions and aiming for full implementation by 2020.
The SREP booklet highlights that, in 2019, 15 national competent authorities implemented this SREP methodology for non-high-priority less significant institutions, in addition to the high-priority less significant institutions that were covered last year as a minimum. Some authorities had already done so in 2018. These authorities are expected to continue the roll-out of the methodology to non-high-priority less significant institutions to ensure that, by the end of 2020, all less significant institutions will have been assessed on the basis of the SREP methodology for less significant institutions. For 2020, the SREP methodology has been enhanced in the areas of interest rate risk in the banking book and IT risk assessment, in line with the EBA guidelines and the supervisory priorities of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. Additionally, the national competent authorities are expected to implement the Pillar 2 Guidance by 2021, in line with the revised EBA guidelines on SREP.
As per the methodology, national competent authorities continue to retain full responsibility, as direct supervisors of less significant institutions, for carrying out the assessments and deciding on capital, liquidity, and qualitative measures. The methodology reflects the principle of proportionality, as it sets out the minimum extent to which supervisors must engage with a less significant institution, according to the priority assigned to the less significant institution and the nature of its business (minimum supervisory engagement model). As a result, the SREP differs between less significant institutions, for example, in terms of how intense the assessment is, what information the less significant institutions needs to submit to the supervisors, and what the supervisors expect from the less significant institutions. The methodology also offers some flexibility to the national competent authorities. Flexibility in the SREP plays an important role when it comes to assessing the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP), the Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process (ILAAP), and the stress tests for less significant institutions. The SREP for less significant institutions is an ongoing process and the methodology will continue to evolve in the future.
Related Links
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Less Significant Institutions, SREP Supervisory Approach, Proportionality, SSM, Stress Testing, ECB
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Emil Lopez
Credit risk modeling advisor; IFRS 9 researcher; data quality and risk reporting manager
James Partridge
Credit analytics expert helping clients understand, develop, and implement credit models for origination, monitoring, and regulatory reporting.
Previous Article
EBA Proposes to Update Methodology for Identification of G-SIIsRelated Articles
EBA Finalizes Templates for One-Off Climate Risk Scenario Analysis
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published the final templates, and the associated guidance, for collecting climate-related data for the one-off Fit-for-55 climate risk scenario analysis.
EBA Mulls Inclusion of Environmental & Social Risks to Pillar 1 Rules
The European Banking Authority (EBA) recently published a report that recommends enhancements to the Pillar 1 framework, under the prudential rules, to capture environmental and social risks.
BCBS Consults on Disclosure of Crypto-Asset Exposures of Banks
As a follow on from its prudential standard on the treatment of crypto-asset exposures, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) proposed disclosure requirements for crypto-asset exposures of banks.
BCBS and EBA Publish Results of Basel III Monitoring Exercise
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) have published results of the Basel III monitoring exercise.
PRA Updates Timeline for Final Basel III Rules, Issues Other Updates
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) recently issued a few regulatory updates for banks, with the updated Basel implementation timelines being the key among them.
US Treasury Sets Out Principles for Net-Zero Financing
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has recently set out the principles for net-zero financing and investment.
EC Launches Survey on G7 Principles on Generative AI
The European Commission (EC) launched a stakeholder survey on the draft International Guiding Principles for organizations developing advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
ISSB Sustainability Standards Expected to Become Global Baseline
The finalization of the two sustainability disclosure standards—IFRS S1 and IFRS S2—is expected to be a significant step forward in the harmonization of sustainability disclosures worldwide.
IOSCO, BIS, and FSB to Intensify Focus on Decentralized Finance
Decentralized finance (DeFi) is expected to increase in prominence, finding traction in use cases such as lending, trading, and investing, without the intermediation of traditional financial institutions.
BCBS Assesses NSFR and Large Exposures Rules in US
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published reports that assessed the overall implementation of the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) and the large exposures rules in the U.S.
