The EBF has responded to the consultation paper of the European Banking Authority (EBA) on draft Guidelines on the appropriate subsets of sectoral exposures to which competent or designated authorities may apply a systemic risk buffer in accordance with the Capital Requirements Directive.
Key concerns of the EBF members are related to a high degree of
complexity of the proposal, the need to ensure consistency in the
implementation of the framework, and the need to keep the operational
burden for banks low. Therefore, the EBF calls on the EBA to consider
the following key concerns:
- The EBA should eliminate overlaps with existing prudential
requirements in order to avoid double counting of risks, especially
between the systemic risk framework and the Pillar 2.
- The high degree of granularity in our view leads to a bottom-up
approach to systemic risk, which raises the question if the framework is
suitable to address systemic risk. The EBA may have to carefully review
the level of granularity of data and whether those reflect other types
of risk, like credit risk.
- The EBA, as the guardian of the Single Rulebook, should seek further
consistency in the proposed framework. The current draft gives too much
discretion at the national level which can only lead to a fragmentation
across jurisdictions.
- The EBA should envisage the use of publicly available data in order to keep the operational burden low.
- We would like to take this opportunity to remind that the systemic
risk buffer is an additional European requirement which does not exist
in other jurisdictions, thus putting European banks and their clients at
a disadvantage. This fact has become evident in the current COVID-19
crisis where authorities have had to ease off the SRB requirement in
order to preserve the lending capacity of banks. It is a lesson to be
learnt and we would encourage the EBA to issue an opinion for future
revisions of the legislation.
EBF
© EBF
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article