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
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published four draft principles to support supervisory efforts in assessing the representativeness of COVID-19-impacted data for banks using the internal ratings based (IRB) credit risk models.
The European Council and the European Parliament (EP) reached a provisional political agreement on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched a consultation (CP6/22) that sets out proposal for a new Supervisory Statement on expectations for management of model risk by banks.
The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2022/954, which amends regulatory technical standards on specification of the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub updated its work program, announcing a set of projects across various centers.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published two consultation papers—one on the supervisory statement on exclusions related to systemic events and the other on the supervisory statement on the management of non-affirmative cyber exposures.
Certain members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs issued a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a consultation paper on the advice on the review of the securitization prudential framework in Solvency II.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on PRA buffer adjustment while the Bank of England (BoE) published a notice on the statistical reporting requirements for banks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued principles for the effective management and supervision of climate-related financial risks.