27 January 2017

AFME response to EBA-ESMA consultation on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and the key function holders

AFME agrees with the approach, but the specific case of entities within a group should nevertheless be more taken into account and specified (proportionality principle). Duplication of formalities and documentation required at the different levels of a group organisation must be avoided where possible. For subjects handled by the group, subsidiaries should have rules allowing them to benefit from exemptions or reduced obligations.

AFME agrees that it is reasonable to ensure that members of the management body are able to commit sufficient time to their position, the level of which should be assessed by each individual firm. However, we note that the time required depends on many parameters, sometimes very subjective: qualities and experience of the member, own speed and efficiency of the member; the specificities of the entities, period and level of activity etc. AFME agrees that it is reasonable to ensure that members of the management body are able to commit sufficient time to their position, both in normal and ‘stressed’ circumstances, the level of which should be assessed by each individual firm. However, it would be difficult for a firm to require each member of the management body to commit to keeping additional time aside on an ongoing basis in case of an extraordinary event, and the notion of a buffer of time is, in any case, quite subjective and difficult to assess.

AFME is supportive of the promotion of diversity in the workplace, and our members are committed to this policy objective through a variety of individual and collective schemes and policies. We agree that a diversity policy should “at least refer to…education and professional background, gender, age…and geographical presence”.

Full response

© AFME