EBA欧洲银行-SummaryCP34_3页_137kb

CEBS Public Hearing Summary: Draft Guidelines for the Operational Functioning of Colleges

Core Content

On 11 March 2010, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) held a public hearing to present its Draft Guidelines for the Operational Functioning of Colleges of Supervisors. The hearing was chaired by Sebastiano Laviola, Chair of the CEBS Subgroup on Operational Networks, and was attended by representatives from various stakeholders including banking institutions, associations, rating agencies, investors, and supervisory authorities from third countries.

The guidelines aim to support the operational functioning of supervisory colleges, as mandated by the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), particularly its Article 131a, which requires CEBS to develop such guidelines. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border banking supervision and to facilitate the consolidating supervisor and host authorities in their supervisory tasks.

Main Objectives of the Draft Guidelines

• To establish a clear framework for the operation of supervisory colleges.
• To ensure coordinated and consistent supervision of cross-border banking groups.
• To promote information exchange, communication with management, and joint decision-making among college members.
• To address macro-prudential risks and support planning and coordination in both normal and emergency situations.
• To align with the upcoming BCBS guidance on supervisory colleges and ensure compatibility with international standards.

Key Points from the Discussion

1. Consistent Implementation of Guidelines

• Participants emphasized the need for CEBS and EBA to ensure a uniform application of the guidelines across all member states.
• There was a call for CEBS to actively engage in the operational activities of the colleges to promote consistency.

2. Role of Technical Expert Teams

• A suggestion was made to increase the role of technical expert teams in preparing for joint decisions or actions.
• It was proposed that industry representatives should be included in these teams to provide practical insights.

3. Harmonisation of National Supervisory Review and Evaluation (SREP) Processes

• There was a request for greater harmonisation of Pillar 2 methodologies to facilitate risk-based capital adequacy decisions.
• CEBS acknowledged the difficulty in harmonising methodologies due to national differences, but expressed a long-term goal of convergence.
• The Draft Guidelines on Joint Assessment of SREP elements and Joint Decision on Risk-Based Capital Adequacy were presented as initial steps towards this goal.

4. Supervisors' Liability

• A question was raised about liability in case of incorrect decisions made within the college.
• CEBS clarified that liability remains governed by national regulations, and the establishment of a college does not alter the legal responsibility of individual supervisory authorities.

5. Involvement of Third Countries' Supervisory Authorities

• Participants highlighted the importance of involving third countries' authorities in supervisory colleges.
• CEBS confirmed that compatibility with BCBS guidance was a key consideration in the drafting process and that drafts were shared with BCBS.
• A review for consistency will be conducted once BCBS publishes its guidance, with potential modifications to the CEBS draft if necessary.

Conclusion

The draft guidelines were generally well received by participants, with no major concerns raised. CEBS is committed to incorporating feedback from the public consultation and plans to revise the document based on the input received. The final version is expected to be published by the end of the first semester of 2010 on the CEBS website. Participants were also encouraged to submit written comments by 31 March 2010, which will be published unless confidentiality is requested.