Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2016)854 - Amendment of the Capital Requirements Directive as regards i.a. exempted entities, (mixed) financial holding companies, remuneration, supervisory measures and powers - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2016)854 - Amendment of the Capital Requirements Directive as regards i.a. exempted entities, (mixed) financial holding companies, ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2016)854  |
| date | 23-11-2016 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The proposed amendment to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) is part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), and to Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR).
Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of institutions (i.e. credit institutions and investment firms) operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM).
These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008 and reflect internationally agreed standards. While the reforms have rendered the financial system more stable and resilient against many types of possible future shocks and crises, they do not yet comprehensively address all identified problems. The present proposals therefore aim to complete the reform agenda by tackling remaining weaknesses and implementing some outstanding elements of the reform that are essential to ensure the institutions' resilience but have only recently been finalised by global standard setters (i.e. the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB)):
• a binding leverage ratio which will prevent institutions from excessively increasing leverage, e.g. to compensate for low profitability;
• a binding net stable funding ratio (NSFR) which will build on institutions’ improved funding profiles and establish a harmonised standard for how much stable, long-term sources of funding an institution needs to weather periods of market and funding stress;
• more risk sensitive own funds (i.e. capital) requirements for institutions that trade to an important extent in securities and derivatives which will prevent too much divergence in those requirements that is not based on the institutions' risk profiles;
• last but not least, new standards on the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) of global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) which will require those institutions to have more loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity, tackle interconnections in the global financial markets and further strengthen the EU’s ability to resolve failing G-SIIs while minimising risks for taxpayers.
The Commission recognised the need for further risk reduction in its Communication of 24 November 2015 and committed to bring forward a legislative proposal that builds on the international agreements listed above. Such risk reduction measures will not only further strengthen the resilience of the European banking system and the markets' confidence in it, but will also provide the basis for further progress in completing the Banking Union. The need for further concrete legislative steps to be taken in terms of reducing risks in the financial sector has been recognised also by the Ecofin Council Conclusions from 17 June 2016. The European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2016 on the Banking Union – Annual Report 2015 also indicates some areas in the current regulatory framework that could be further addressed.
At the same time, the Commission needed to take account of the existing regulatory framework and the new regulatory developments at international level and respond to challenges affecting the EU economy, especially the need to promote growth and jobs at times of uncertain economic outlook. Various major policy initiatives, such as the Investment Plan for Europe (EFSI) and the Capital Markets Union have been launched in order to strengthen the economy of the Union. The ability of institutions to contribute to financing the economy needs to be enhanced without impinging on the stability of the regulatory framework. In order to ensure that recent reforms in the financial sector interact smoothly with each other and with new policy initiatives, but also with broader recent reforms in the financial sector, the Commission carried out, on the basis of a call for evidence, a thorough holistic assessment of the existing financial services framework (including the CRR, CRD, BRRD and SRMR). The upcoming review of global standards was also assessed from a wider economic impact perspective.
Amendments based on international developments represent a faithful implementation of international standards into Union law, subject to targeted adjustments in order to reflect EU specificities and broader policy considerations. For instance, the predominant reliance on bank financing by EU small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or for infrastructure projects prompts specific regulatory adjustments that ensure institutions remain capable of funding them as they constitute the backbone of the single market. A smooth interaction with existing requirements, such as for central clearing and collateralisation of derivatives exposures, or a gradual transition to some of the new requirements are necessary. Such adjustments, limited in terms of scope or time, do therefore not impinge on the overall soundness of the proposals, which are aligned with the basic level of ambition of the international standards.
Moreover, based on the call for evidence, the proposals aim at improving existing rules. The analysis of the Commission showed that the present framework can be applied in a more proportionate way, taking into account in particular the situation of smaller and less complex institutions where some of the current disclosure, reporting and complex trading book-related requirements appear not to be justified by prudential considerations. Furthermore, the Commission has considered the risk attached to loans to SMEs and for funding infrastructure projects and found that for some of those loans, it would be justified to apply lower own funds requirements than are applied at present. Accordingly, the present proposals will bring corrections to these requirements and will enhance the proportionality of the prudential framework for institutions. Thereby, the ability of institutions to finance the economy will be enhanced without impinging on the stability of the regulatory framework.
Finally, the Commission, in close cooperation with the Expert Group on Banking, Payments and Insurance has assessed the application of options and discretions set out in the CRD and the CRR. Based on this analysis, the present proposal is intending to eliminate some options and discretions concerning the provisions on the leverage ratio, on large exposures and on own funds. It is proposed to end to the possibility to create new State guaranteed deferred tax assets not relying on future profitability that would be exempted from deduction from regulatory capital.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
Several elements of the CRD and CRR proposals follows inherent reviews, whilst other adaptations of the financial regulatory framework have become necessary in light of subsequent developments, such as the adoption of the BRRD, the establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the work undertaken by the European Banking Authority (EBA) and on international level.
The proposal introduces amendments to the existing legislation and renders it fully consistent with the existing policy provisions in the field of prudential requirements for institutions, their supervision and recovery and resolution framework.
• Consistency with other Union policies
Four years after the European Heads of State and Governments agreed to create a Banking Union, two pillars of the Banking Union – single supervision and resolution – are in place, resting on the solid foundation of a single rulebook for all EU institutions. While important progress has been made, further steps are needed to complete the Banking Union, including the creation of a single deposit guarantee scheme.
The review of the CRR and the CRD is part of risk reducing measures that are needed to further strengthen resilience of the banking sector ad that are parallel to the staged introduction of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). The review aims at the same time to ensure a continued single rulebook for all EU institutions, whether inside or outside the Banking Union. The overall objectives of this initiative, as described above, are fully consistent and coherent with the EU's fundamental goals of promoting financial stability, reducing the likelihood and the extent of taxpayers' support in case an institution is resolved as well as contributing to a harmonious and sustainable financing of economic activity, which is conducive to a high level of competitiveness and consumer protection.
These overall objectives are also in line with the objectives set by other major EU initiatives, as described above.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposed amendments are built on the same legal basis as the legislative acts that are being amended, i.e. Article 114 TFEU for the proposal for a regulation amending CRR and Article 53(1) TFEU for the proposal for a directive amending CRD IV.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The objectives pursued by the proposed measures aim at supplementing already existing EU legislation and can therefore best be achieved at EU level rather than by different national initiatives. National measures aimed at, for example, reducing institutions’ leverage, strengthening their stable funding and trading book capital requirements would not be as effective in ensuring financial stability as EU rules, given the freedom of institutions to establish and provide services in other Member States and the resulting degree of cross-border service provision, capital flows and market integration. On the contrary, national measures could distort competition and affect capital flows. Moreover, adopting national measures would be legally challenging, given that the CRR already regulates banking matters, including leverage requirements (reporting), liquidity (specifically the liquidity coverage ratio or LCR) and trading book requirements.
The amendment of the CRR and CRD is thus considered to be the best option. It strikes the right balance between harmonising rules and maintaining national flexibility where essential, without hampering the single rulebook. The amendments would further promote a uniform application of prudential requirements, the convergence of supervisory practices and ensure a level playing field throughout the single market for banking services. These objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone. This is particularly important in the banking sector where many credit institutions operate across the EU single market. Full cooperation and trust within the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) and within the colleges of supervisors and competent authorities outside the SSM is essential for credit institutions to be effectively supervised on a consolidated basis. National rules would not achieve these objectives.
• Proportionality
Proportionality has been an integral part of the impact assessment accompanying the proposal. Not only have all the proposed options in different regulatory fields been individually assessed against the proportionality objective, but also the lack of proportionality of the existing rules has been presented as a separate problem and specific options have been analysed aiming at reducing administrative and compliance costs for smaller institutions (see sections 2.9 and 4.9 of the impact assessment).
• Choice of the instrument
The measures are proposed to be implemented by amending the CRR and the CRD through a Regulation and a Directive, respectively. The proposed measures indeed refer to or develop further already existing provisions inbuilt in those legal instruments (liquidity, leverage, remuneration, proportionality).
As regards the new FSB agreed standard on TLAC, it is suggested to incorporate the bulk of the standard into the CRR, as only a regulation can achieve the necessary uniform application, much in the same way as the existing risk-based own funds requirements. Shaping prudential requirements in the form of an amendment to the CRR would ensure that those requirements will in fact be directly applicable to G-SIIs. This would prevent Member States from implementing diverging national requirements in an area where full harmonisation is desirable in order to prevent an un-level playing field. Fine-tuning of the current legal provisions within the BRRD will however be necessary to make sure that the TLAC requirement and the minimum requirement on own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) are fully coherent and consistent with each other.
Some of the proposed CRD amendments affecting proportionality would leave Member States with a certain degree of flexibility to maintain different rules at the stage of their transposition into national law. It would give Member States the option of imposing stricter rules on certain matters such as remuneration and reporting.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Stakeholder consultations
The Commission carried out various initiatives in order to assess whether the existing prudential framework and the upcoming reviews of global standards were the most adequate instruments to ensure prudential objectives for EU institutions and also whether they would continue to provide the necessary funding to the EU economy.
In July 2015 the Commission launched a public consultation on the possible impact of the CRR and the CRD on bank financing of the EU economy with a particular focus on the financing of SMEs and of infrastructure and in September 2015 a Call for Evidence (CfE) 1 covering EU financial legislation as a whole. The two initiatives sought empirical evidence and concrete feedback on i) rules affecting the ability of the economy to finance itself and growth, ii) unnecessary regulatory burdens, iii) interactions, inconsistencies and gaps in the rules, and iv) rules giving rise to unintended consequences. In addition, the Commission gathered stakeholders' views in the framework of specific analyses carried out on provisions regulating remuneration 2 and on the proportionality of the rules contained in the CRR and the CRD. Finally, a public consultation was launched in the context of the study contracted out by the Commission to assess the impact of the CRR on the bank financing of the economy 3 .
All the initiatives mentioned above have provided clear evidence of the need to update and complete the current rules in order i) to reduce further the risks in the banking sector and thereby reduce the reliance on State aid and taxpayers' money in case of a crisis, and ii) to enhance the ability of institutions to channel adequate funding to the economy.
Annexes 1 and 2 of the impact assessment provide a summary of the consultations, reviews and reports.
• Impact assessment
The impact assessment 4 was discussed with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and rejected on 7 September 2016. Following the rejection, the impact assessment was strengthened by adding i) a better explanation on the policy context of the proposal (i.e. it relation to both international and EU policy developments), ii) more details on stakeholders' views and iii) further evidence on the impacts (both in terms of benefits and costs) of the various policy options that are explored in the impact assessment. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board issued a positive opinion 5 on 27 September 2016 on the resubmitted impact assessment. The proposal is accompanied by the impact assessment. The proposal remains consistent with the impact assessment.
As shown by the simulation analysis and macroeconomic modelling developed in the impact assessment, there are limited costs to be expected from the introduction of the new requirements, in particular the new Basel standards such as the leverage ratio and the trading book. The estimated long-term impact on gross domestic product (GDP) ranges between -0.03% and -0.06% while the increase in funding costs for the banking sector is estimated to be under 3 basis points in the most extreme scenario. On the benefits side, the simulation exercise has shown that public resources required to support the banking system in case of a financial crisis of the size similar to 2007 – 2008 would decrease by 32% – a decline from EUR 51 billion to EUR 34 billion.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The retention of simplified approaches to calculate own funds requirements are expected to ensure continued proportionality of the rules for smaller institutions. Furthermore, the additional measures to increase proportionality of some of the requirements (related to reporting, disclosure and remuneration) should decrease the administrative and compliance burden for those institutions.
As far as SMEs are concerned, the proposed recalibration of the own funds requirements for institutions' exposures to SMEs is expected to have a positive effect on financing of SMEs. This would primarily affect SMEs which currently have exposures beyond EUR 1,5 million as these exposures do not benefit from the SME Supporting Factor under the existing rules.
Other elements of the proposal, particularly those aimed at improving resilience of institutions to future crises, are expected to increase sustainability of lending to SMEs.
Finally, measures aimed at reducing compliance costs for institutions, in particular the smaller and less complex institutions, are expected to reduce borrowing costs for SMEs.
On the third country dimension, the proposal will enhance the stability of EU financial markets thereby reducing the likelihood and costs of potential negative spillovers for global financial markets. Moreover, the proposed amendments will further harmonise the regulatory framework throughout the Union thereby reducing substantially administrative costs for third country institutions operating in the EU.
The proposal is consistent with the Commission's priority for the Digital Single Market.
• Fundamental rights
The EU is committed to high standards of protection of fundamental rights and is signatory to a broad set of conventions on human rights. In this context, the proposal is not likely to have a direct impact on these rights, as listed in the main UN conventions on human rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is an integral part of the EU Treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal does not have implications for the Union budget.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
It is expected that the proposed amendments will start entering into force in 2019 at the earliest. The amendments are tightly inter-linked with other provisions of the CRR and the CRD that are already in force and have been monitored since 2014.
The BCBS and the EBA will continue to collect the necessary data for the monitoring of the leverage ratio and the new liquidity measures in order to allow for the future impact evaluation of the new policy tools. Regular Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREPs) and stress testing exercises will also help monitoring the impact of the new proposed measures upon affected institutions and assessing the adequacy of the flexibility and proportionality provided for to cater for the specificities of smaller institutions. Additionally, the Commission services will continue to participate in the working groups of the BCBS and the joint task force established by the European Central Bank (ECB) and by EBA, that monitor the dynamics of institutions' own funds and liquidity positions, globally and in the EU, respectively.
The set of indicators to monitor the progress of the results stemming from the implementation of the preferred options consists of the following:
| Indicator | NSFR for EU institutions |
| Target | As of the date of application, 99% of institutions taking part to the EBA Basel III monitoring exercise meet the NSFR at 100% (65% of group 1 and 89% of group 2 credit institutions meet the NSFR as of end-of December 2015) |
| Source of data | Semi-annual the EBA Basel III monitoring reports |
| Indicator | Leverage ratio for EU institutions |
| Target | As of the date of application, 99% of group 1 and group 2 credit institutions have a leverage ratio of at least 3% (93,4% of group 1 institutions met the target as of June 2015) |
| Source of data | Semi-annual EBA Basel III monitoring reports |
Contents
| Indicator | Financing gap to SMEs in the EU, i.e. difference between the need for external funds and the availability of funds |
| Target | As of two years after the date of application, < 13% (last known figure – 13% as of end 2014) |
| Source of data | European Commission / European Central Bank SAFE Survey (data coverage limited to the euro area) |
| Indicator | TLAC in G-SIIs |
| Target | All EU Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) meet the target (>16% of risk weighted assets (RWA)/6% of the Leverage Ratio Exposure Measure (LREM) as of 2019, > 18% Risk Weighted Assets (RWA)/6.75% LREM as of 2022) |
| Source of data | Semi-annual EBA Basel III monitoring reports |
| Indicator | RWA for market risks for EU institutions Observed variability of risk-weighted assets of aggregated portfolios applying the internal models approach. |
| Target | - As of 2023, all EU institutions meet the own funds requirements for market risks under the final calibration adopted in the EU. - As of 2021, unjustifiable variability (i.e. variability not driven by differences in underlying risks) of the outcomes of the internal models across EU institutions is lower than the current variability* of the internal models across EU institutions. _______________ *Reference values for the 'current variability' of value-at-risk (VaR) and incremental risk charge (IRC) requirements should be those estimated by the latest EBA 'Report on variability of Risk Weighted Assets for Market Risk Portfolios', calculated for aggregated portfolios, published before the entry into force of the new market risk framework. |
| Source of data | Semi-annual EBA Basel III monitoring reports EBA Report on variability of Risk Weighted Assets for Market Risk Portfolios. New values should be calculated according to the same methodology. |
| Indicator | Use of deferral and pay-out in instruments by institutions |
| Target | 99% of institutions that are not small and non-complex, in line with the CRD requirements, defer at least 40% of variable remuneration over 3 to 5 years and pay out at least 50% of variable remuneration in instruments with respect to their identified staff with material levels of variable remuneration. |
| Source of data | EBA remuneration benchmarking reports |
| Indicator | Reduced burden from supervisory reporting and disclosure |
| Target | 80% of smaller and less complex institutions report reduced burden |
| Source of data | Survey to be developed and conducted by EBA by 2022 - 2023 |
The evaluation of the impacts of this proposal will be done five years after the date of application of the proposed measures on the basis of the methodology that will be agreed with EBA soon after adoption. EBA will be mandated to define and gather the data needed for monitoring the above mentioned indicators as well as other indicators needed for the evaluation of the amended CRR and CRD. The methodology could be developed for individual options or a set of interlinked options depending on the circumstances present before launching the evaluation and depending on the output of monitoring indicators.
Compliance and enforcement will be ensured on an ongoing basis where needed through the Commission launching infringement proceedings for lack of transposition or for incorrect transposition or application of the legislative measures. Reporting of breaches of EU law can be channelled through the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), including the national competent authorities and EBA, as well as through the ECB. EBA will also continue publishing its regular reports of the Basel III monitoring exercise on the EU banking system. This exercise monitors the impact of the Basel III requirements (as implemented through the CRR and the CRD) on EU institutions in particular as regards institutions' capital ratios (risk-based and non-risk-based) and liquidity ratios (LCR, NSFR). It is run in parallel with the one conducted by the BCBS.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
exempted entities
Article 2(5) of the CRD is amended to add institutions in Croatia that were exempted from the application of the CRD and the CRR via the Accession Treaty.
Public development banks and credit unions in certain Member States are already exempted from the CRD-CRR regulatory framework. To ensure a level playing field, all Member States should be able to benefit from the possibility of allowing such types of entities to operate only under national regulatory safeguards commensurate with the risks that they incur. To this end, the Commission has committed in its Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union of 30 September 2015, to explore the possibility for all Member States to authorise credit unions that would operate outside the EU's capital requirements framework for banks. In line with such commitments and, at the request of The Netherlands, credit unions in The Netherlands are also included on the list of institutions in Article 2(5) of the CRD. Furthermore, to facilitate the exemption from the CRD-CRR regulatory framework of institutions in other Member States that are similar to the ones already included in the list, Articles 2(5a) and 2(5b) are added to the CRD. These Articles empower the Commission to exempt specific institutions or categories of institutions from the CRD, provided that they comply with clearly defined criteria. Such new exemptions may only be done on a case-by-case basis for public development-type of banks or for the entire credit union sector of a Member State.
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 is amended to better frame the exceptions to the prohibition that persons or undertakings other than credit institutions carry out the business of taking deposits or other repayable funds from the public. It is clarified that the prohibition does not apply to persons or undertakings the taking up and pursuit of business of which is subject to Union law other than the CRD, to the extent that their activities subject to such other Union law may be qualified as taking of deposits or other repayable funds from the public. This should not prevent an entity from being subject to authorisation under both the CRD and such other Union legislation. Furthermore, it is clarified that only entities listed in Article 2(5) of the CRD are exempted from the prohibition in Article 9(1) of the CRD due to the fact that they are covered by specific national legal frameworks, thus removing the ambiguity in the current wording.
Pillar 2 capital requirements and guidance
The current wording of rules concerning additional capital requirements set by competent authorities according to Article 104 allows for different interpretations of the cases in which those requirements may be imposed and the way such requirements position themselves in relation to the minimum capital requirements set out in Article 92 of the Capital Requirement Regulation (CRR) and the combined buffer requirement (Article 128). These diverse interpretations have resulted in substantially different amounts of capital imposed on individual institutions across Member States and in different triggering points for the restrictions on distribution provided for in Article 141. Moreover, the current text is silent on the possibility for competent authorities to communicate their expectations for institutions to have own funds in excess of the minimum capital requirements, additional own funds requirements and the combined buffers requirement. The amended Article 104 lists the possibility to impose additional own funds requirements amongst other competent authorities' powers. A new Article 104a clarifies the conditions for setting additional own funds requirements and emphasises the institution-specific nature of those requirements. A new Article 104b is added to spell out the main features of capital guidance and Article 113 is amended to provide that capital guidance should also be dealt with in the framework of colleges of supervisors. A new Article 141a is inserted to better clarify, for the purposes of restrictions on distributions, the relation between the additional own funds requirements, the minimum own funds requirements, the own funds and eligible liabilities requirement, the MREL and the combined buffers requirement (so called 'stacking order'). Finally, Article 141 is amended to reflect the stacking order in the calculation of the maximum distributable amount.
Pillar 2 reporting and disclosure
To reduce administrative burden and provide for a more proportionate Pillar 2 reporting and disclosure regime, the proposal amends Article 104(1) of the CRD to constrain competent authorities' discretion when imposing additional reporting or disclosure obligations on institutions. Competent authorities will only be entitled to use these supervisory powers when the legal grounds defined in the new paragraph (2) of Article 104 are met.
Confining the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) and Pillar 2 to micro-prudential purposes
Recent experience has shown that there would be merit in a clearer delineation of the areas of responsibility between competent and designated authorities. This applies notably to the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) and the corresponding supervisory requirements. Competent authorities are responsible for the SREP and the imposition of corresponding institution-specific supervisory requirements (so-called Pillar 2 requirements). In this context, they may also evaluate systemic risk stemming from a specific institution and could address such risk by imposing supervisory requirements to this institution. The use of Pillar 2 measures may in this context undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of other macro-prudential instruments. Against this background, the proposal provides that the SREP and corresponding supervisory requirements should be confined to a purely micro-prudential perspective. Articles 97, 98, 99 and 105 are amended accordingly. Article 103 is deleted and a clarification is included in the new Article 104a(1) providing that additional own funds requirements referred to in point (a) of Article 104 shall not be imposed to cover macro-prudential or systemic risk.
Introducing a modified framework for interest rate risk
Following developments at international level on the measurement of interest rate risks, Articles 84 and 98 of this Directive and Article 448 of the CRR are amended in order to introduce a revised framework for capturing interest rate risks for banking book positions. The amendments include the introduction of a common standardised approach that institutions might use to capture these risks or that competent authorities may require the institution to use when the systems developed by the institution to capture these risks are not satisfactory, improved outlier test and disclosure requirements. In addition, the EBA is mandated, in Article 84 of the CRD, to elaborate the details of the standardised methodology with regard to the criteria and conditions that institutions should follow to identify, evaluate, manage and mitigate interest rate risks. The EBA is also mandated, in Article 98 of the CRD, to define the six supervisory shock scenarios applied to interest rates and the common assumption that institutions have to implement for the outlier test.
Financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies
New provisions are introduced and adjustments are made to several Articles in the CRD-CRR in order to bring financial holding companies and mixed financial holding companies directly in the scope of the EU prudential framework. An authorisation requirement is introduced along with direct supervisory powers over financial holding companies and mixed financial holding companies (Article 21a of the CRD). Article 11 of the CRR is amended to clarify that - where requirements are applied on a consolidated basis at the level of such holding companies- it will be the holding company which is directly responsible for compliance, not the institutions that are subsidiaries of such holdings. Articles 13 and 18 of the CRR are adjusted to reflect direct responsibility of the financial holding companies or mixed financial holding companies.
Intermediate EU parent undertaking
In order to facilitate the implementation of the internationally agreed standards on internal loss-absorbing capacity for non-EU G-SIIs in Union law and, more broadly, to simplify and strengthen the resolution process of third-country groups with significant activities in the EU, Article 21b of the CRD introduces a new requirement for establishing an intermediate EU parent undertaking where two or more institutions established in the EU have the same ultimate parent undertaking in a third country. The intermediate EU parent undertaking can be either a holding company subject to the requirements of the CRR and the CRD, or an EU institution. The requirement will apply only to third-country groups that are identified as non-EU G-SIIs or that have entities on the EU territory with total assets of at least EUR 30 billion (the assets of both subsidiaries and branches of those third-country groups will be taken into account in the calculation).
Remuneration
As required under Article 161(2) of the CRD, the Commission has reviewed the efficiency, implementation and enforcement of the CRD remuneration rules. The findings of this review, reflected in the Commission Report COM(2016) 510, were overall positive.
The review however showed that some of the rules, namely the rules on deferral and pay-out in instruments, are not workable for the smallest and least complex institutions and for staff with low variable remuneration. The review also showed that proportionality with regard to the smallest and least complex institutions as reflected in Article 92(2) of the CRD has been interpreted in different ways, leading to an uneven implementation of the rules in the Member States. A targeted amendment is therefore proposed to cater for the problems encountered in the application of the rules on deferral and pay-out in instruments in small and non-complex institutions and towards staff members with low variable remuneration. To this end, Article 94 is amended to clarify that the rules apply to all institutions and their identified staff, except for those that are below the thresholds set for derogations. At the same time, some flexibility is offered to competent authorities to adopt a stricter approach.
The amendments concerning provisions on remuneration also aim to address another need for more proportional rules identified by the Commission's review by allowing listed institutions to use share-linked instruments for meeting the CRD requirements.