EBF response to the Commission consultation on the European Supervisory Authorities

16 May 2017

The EBF regarded this consultation as a key step towards developing and maintaining a consistent supervisory framework with a high level of investor protection.

The EBF’s response highlights the following aspects, among others:

• Calling for a European financial sector ‘no-action’ relief - ‘No-action’ powers enjoyed by supervisors outside the EU, such as the US, provide valuable stability and clarity in certain situations. Our industry recently witnessed uncertainty regarding the requirement to exchange variation margin for uncleared derivatives. A clear mechanism for ‘no-action’ could improve certainty and minimise disruption at the EU level.
• No putting ‘the cart in front of the horse’ when making rules - Whenever ESAs are working on Level 2 ahead of the adoption of the Level 1 text by the European legislators, they need to ensure that the rules are not finalised before the law. This is true for legislation originating in the EU as well as legislation that is implementing international standards. For example, at present we are concerned that EBA will rush through implementation of some elements of the Basel standard on interest rate risk in the banking book while it is still subject of discussion by the European institutions within the Risk Reduction Package.
• ESAs’ Questions and Answers to benefit from consultation with stakeholders - The Q&As are a potentially useful instrument to regulate. Although not technically binding, they provide widely-accepted interpretations. They should benefit from systematic and appropriate consultation.
• More consultation, more time for implementation - The ESAs should strengthen their capability in impact assessment and in particular develop their own impact assessment frameworks to enable them to analyse the implementation costs and effectiveness of secondary legislation. Timetables should allow for better implementation and must be better coordinated. Adjusting internal processes and procedures to new Level 2 requirements is difficult if the latter are published shortly before becoming applicable (as was the case with the Level 2 measures under MAR). Timetables also need to be coordinated across sectors to ensure optimal stakeholder input. Finally, ESAs should seek to make a greater and more systematically organised use of the various stakeholder groups for knowledge and industry representation.

Press release

Full response

© EBF