EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consultation-Paper-28EBA-CP-2015-0429205-June-2015_5页_213kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Consultation Summary on EBA/CP/2015/04

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided comments on the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2015/04, which proposes a draft Regulatory Technical Standard (RTS) on the minimum set of information on financial contracts that should be contained in detailed records and the circumstances in which the requirement should be imposed (Article 71(8) of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)).

The BSG supports the initiative to harmonise supervisory rules and practices across Europe, aiming to ensure fair competition and efficient cross-border resolution. However, they also highlight potential issues that could lead to unintended consequences if not properly addressed.

Main Views and Key Points

General Comments

• The BSG endorses the objective of establishing a credible and effective resolution framework and ensuring that detailed records of financial contracts are maintained to support resolution processes.
• They stress the importance of having these records ready in advance to facilitate the resolution authorities’ actions during the "resolution week-end".
• The BSG believes that the information required for detailed records is largely already available through existing reporting obligations and external databases such as trade repositories.

Circumstances for Imposing the Requirement

• The BSG supports the application of the proportionality principle, meaning that the requirement should be imposed only on those institutions likely to be subject to resolution tools.
• They are concerned about the obligation for entities to maintain internal records, as this could lead to duplication and unnecessary burdens.
• The BSG recommends that the records be kept in external databases, especially trade repositories, to avoid duplication and reduce the administrative burden on institutions.

Information Required in Detailed Records

• The BSG agrees with the list of information proposed in the Annex of the draft RTS.
• They note that the structure of the Annex is consistent with the Commission's delegated regulation (EU) No 148/2013, which reinforces the idea of using existing reporting frameworks.
• This consistency is seen as beneficial for avoiding duplication and ensuring efficiency.

Structure of the RTS

• The BSG agrees that the Annex should maintain the same structure as the Commission's delegated regulation (EU) No 148/2013.
• They believe that using a consistent structure helps reduce reporting and validation burdens, minimises inconsistency risks, and improves overall efficiency.
• Homogeneous templates are important for common reporting practices and to allow external databases to fulfill the records requirement.

Per Trade vs. Per Counterparty Data Collection

• The BSG considers that further clarification on how to classify data points as either "per trade" or "per counterparty" would be helpful.
• Such clarification would assist counterparties in fulfilling the records requirement in a more efficient and consistent manner.

Conclusion

The BSG advocates for a harmonised, proportionate, and efficient approach to maintaining detailed records of financial contracts. They support the use of existing external databases and the alignment of the proposed RTS with current reporting regulations. By avoiding duplication and ensuring consistency, the BSG believes the proposed RTS can contribute to a more effective and less burdensome resolution framework across the European Union.