2014年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_report_on_regulatory_implementation_of_Pillar_3_20页_384kb

Summary of the Report on Regulatory Implementation of Pillar 3

Core Content

This report provides an overview of the regulatory implementation of Pillar 3 disclosures under Directive 2006/48/EC in the European Union. It highlights key findings from a survey conducted by CEBS (Committee of European Banking Supervisors) and discusses the main concerns and issues raised by the industry and supervisory authorities.

Main Findings

• Focus on Pillar 3: With increased attention on Pillar 3, CEBS has initiated a survey to assess the implementation of disclosure requirements at the national level.
• Survey Objective: The survey aims to understand how CEBS members and industry observers have implemented the general provisions of the Directive, particularly in relation to Pillar 3.
• Workshop Engagement: The findings were discussed with industry participants during a Pillar 3 workshop on 7 December 2007, where concerns and practical issues were also raised.

Key Issues Identified

1. Scope of Application of Pillar 3 Disclosure Requirements (Article 72)

• Article 72.1 and 72.2: These provisions require EU parent institutions and their significant subsidiaries to disclose certain capital-related information.
• National Implementation Differences:
  • Supervisory Intervention: Some countries set quantitative or qualitative criteria for determining significant subsidiaries, while others do not intervene.
  • Full Disclosure: A few countries require full disclosure from all local entities, including subsidiaries, which raises concerns from the industry about the added value of such disclosures.
• Industry Concerns: The industry views Pillar 3 as the responsibility of the firms, and believes that full disclosure is unnecessary and burdensome. They argue that market participants would benefit more from group-level disclosures.

2. Use of the Waiver in Article 72.3

• Waiver Overview: Article 72.3 allows countries to exempt credit institutions from Pillar 3 disclosure if they are included in consolidated disclosures by a parent undertaking in a third country.
• Implementation: 17 countries use this waiver, while 12 do not. The 12 non-applying countries include all 6 that require full disclosure from all entities.
• No Major Concern from EBF: The European banking industry has not raised major concerns regarding this waiver, though third country supervisory authorities may contact CEBS in the future.

3. Disclosure Policy and General Concepts

• Formal Disclosure Policy: Article 145.3 of the Directive requires credit institutions to adopt a formal disclosure policy, including frequency and verification.
• Supervisory Guidance: Most countries do not provide detailed supervisory guidance on the structure or content of the disclosure policy.
• Materiality and Confidentiality: The concepts of materiality and proprietary/confidential information are not subject to widespread supervisory criteria, with most countries preferring a case-by-case approach.

4. Other Implementation Issues

• Frequency of Disclosure: While the Directive mandates annual disclosure, some countries require more frequent reporting, especially for institutions using advanced risk methodologies or listed entities.
• Medium and Location: Supervisory authorities vary in their approach to the medium and location of disclosures. Some countries allow banks to choose, while others prescribe specific locations, such as bank websites.
• Verification of Disclosures: Most countries do not specify particular verification methods, but a few require external or internal audits. This has raised concerns among the industry about increased costs and potential misalignment with Basel II principles.

Key Concerns and Industry Feedback

• Misinterpretation of Pillar 3 Data: Some industry participants are concerned that initial disclosures may be misinterpreted, suggesting the need for further education.
• Complexity and Cost: The industry perceives Pillar 3 disclosures as too complex and costly for local market participants, such as depositors and investors, and prefers group-level disclosures.
• Proprietary Information and Audit Burden: There are worries that audit requirements for Pillar 3 disclosures may override internal risk management controls and increase operational burden.

Follow-Up Work

• Focus Areas:
  • Application of Articles 72.1 and 72.2: CEBS will investigate the possibility of a compromise solution where limited disclosure is provided alongside a subsidiary's financial statements.
  • Accounting and Pillar 3 Consistency: CEBS will monitor the relationship between accounting disclosures (e.g., IFRS 7) and Pillar 3 disclosures to ensure consistency and avoid misinterpretation.
• Timing: Follow-up work is expected to be completed by the end of 2008.
• Coordination: Any further actions, such as the development of a good practices paper, will be coordinated with other supervisory fora like the Basel Committee.

Conclusion

The report concludes that, while there are differences in the implementation of Pillar 3 across EU countries, most of these differences do not represent major concerns. CEBS will continue to monitor and engage with the industry to address specific issues, particularly those related to the scope of disclosure and the relationship between accounting and prudential disclosures. The goal is to ensure that Pillar 3 contributes effectively to market discipline without imposing undue burdens on institutions and stakeholders.