Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2017)790 - Prudential requirements of investment firms

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2017)790 - Prudential requirements of investment firms.
source COM(2017)790 EN
date 20-12-2017


1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The EU needs stronger capital markets in order to promote investment, unlock new sources of financing for companies, offer households better opportunities and strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union. The Commission is committed to putting in place all the remaining building blocks in order to complete the Capital Markets Union (CMU) by 20191.

Investment firms provide a range of services that give investors access to securities and derivatives markets (investment advice, portfolio management, brokerage, execution of orders etc.). Investment firms and the services they provide form a vital cog in a well-functioning CMU. They play an important role in facilitating savings and investment flows across the EU, with various services used to support effective capital allocation and risk m anage m ent.

There are investment firms in all Member States. According to information compiled by the European Banking Authority (EBA), there were 6 051 investment firms in the European Economic Area (EEA)2 at the end of 2015. These include firms providing a limited set of services to retail customers in the main through to those offering a number of services to a broad range of retail, professional and corporate clients.

Based on information from the EBA, around 85 % of EEA investment firms limit their activities to:

• offering investm ent advice;

• receiving and transmitting orders;

• managing portfolios; and

• executing orders.

Contents

1.

Acting as an important hub for capital markets and investment activities, the UK has the largest number of EEA investment firms, with roughly half of them based there, followed by


Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain. Most EEA investment firms are small or medium-sized. The EBA estimates that some eight investment firms, largely concentrated in

the UK, control around 80 % of the assets of all investment firms in the EEA.

As one of the new priority actions to strengthen capital markets and build a CMU, the Commission therefore announced in its Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan that it would propose a more effective prudential and supervisory framework

1 See ‘Communication on the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan’, COM(2017) 292 final, 8 June 2017; and, ‘Communication on Reinforcing integrated supervision to strengthen Capital Markets Union and financial integration in a changing environment’, COM(2017) 542 final, 20 September 2017.

2 EBA report on investment firms, response to Commission’s call for advice of December 2014 (EBA/Op/2015/20), Table 12: Population of investment firms, by category, by country, p. 96. www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359%2BReport%2Bon%2Binvestment%2Bfirms.pdf">https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359+Report+on+investment+firms.pdf

3 COM(2017) 292 final.

for investment firms, calibrated to the size and nature of investment firms, in order to boost competition and improve investors’ access to new opportunities and better ways of managing their risks. In view of the pivotal role played by UK investment firms in this area to date, the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU further underlines the need to update the regulatory architecture in the EU in order to support this development.

The proposals covering this Regulation and the accompanying Directive (‘the proposals’) were included in the 2017 Commission Work Programme as a REFIT exercise. They aim to ensure that investment firms are subject to capital, liquidity and other key prudential requirements and corresponding supervisory arrangements that are adapted to their business yet sufficiently robust to capture the risks of investment firms in a prudentially sound manner in order to protect the stability of the EU’s financial markets. The proposals are the outcome of a review mandated by Articles 493(2), 498(2), 508(2) and 508(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation, or CRR)4 which, together with Directive 2013/36/EU (Capital Requirements Directive IV, or CRD IV)5, constitute the current prudential framework for investment firms. When agreeing these texts, co-legislators decided that the framework for investment firms should be reviewed given that its rules are largely geared to credit institutions.

Unlike credit institutions, investment firms do not take deposits or make loans. This means that they are a lot less exposed to credit risk and the risk of depositors withdrawing their money at short notice. Their services focus on financial instruments – unlike deposits, these are not payable at par but fluctuate according to market movements. They do however compete with credit institutions in providing investment services, which credit institutions can offer to their customers under their banking licence. Credit institutions and investment firms are therefore two qualitatively different institutions with different primary business models but with some overlap in the services they can provide.

Investment firms have been subject to EU prudential rules alongside credit institutions since 1993, the year in which the first EU framework governing the activities of investment firms entered into force. Now replaced by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)6 and, as of January 2018, by MiFID II / MiFIR7, this framework sets out the conditions for authorisation and organisational and business conduct requirements under which investment services can be provided to investors as well as other requirements governing the orderly functioning of financial markets.

2.

The prudential framework for investment firms in the CRR/CRD IV works in conjunction


4 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1-337).

5 Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338-436).

6 Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1-44).

7 Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349-496) and Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84-148).

with MiFID. Typically, prudential requirements on financial institutions are designed to (i) ensure that they have sufficient resources to remain financially viable and to carry out their services through economic cycles; or (ii) enable an orderly wind-down without causing undue economic harm to their customers or to the stability of the markets they operate in. As a result, they should aim to reflect the risks that different financial institutions face and pose, be proportionate to the likelihood of the risks occurring, and broadly strike a balance between ensuring the safety and soundness of different financial institutions and avoiding excessive costs which could hinder them from carrying out their business in a viable way.

Systemic investment firms, a number of which are identified as global, or other systemically important institutions under Article 131 of CRD IV should still be subject to the CRR/CRD IV framework, including the amendments proposed by the Commission on 23 November 20168, in accordance with the revised approach for identifying them in the proposals. This is because these firms typically incur and underwrite risks on a significant scale throughout the single market. Their activities expose them to credit risk, which is mainly in the form of counterparty credit risk as well as market risk for positions they take on own account, whether for their clients or themselves. They therefore constitute a greater risk to financial stability given their size and interconnectedness. In light of these risks and in order to ensure a level playing field, such systemic investment firms should be treated as credit institutions.

As announced in the Commission Communication of September 2017 on the review of the European Supervisory Authorities9 (ESAs), this would also imply among other things that their operations in Member States participating in the Banking Union are subject to direct supervision by the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism. At present, these firms are largely concentrated in the UK but are in the process of considering plans to relocate parts of their operations to the EU-27, notably to Member States participating in the Banking Union. While this covers only a small number of firms, they nevertheless represent a sizeable share of the total assets and business volume of all investment firms in the EU.

For other investment firms, the fact that the current prudential framework focuses on credit institutions and the risks they face and pose rather than investment firms is more problematic. The services provided by these firms and the risks they can create are, to a large extent, not explicitly addressed by the existing rules. Of the eight investment services that investment firms are authorised to perform under MiFID10, only (i) dealing on own account; and (ii) underwriting or placing instruments on a firm commitment basis have clear corresponding requirements under the CRR. For the other investment services (reception and transmission of orders, execution of orders, portfolio management, investment advice, placing instruments without a firm commitment basis, operation of a multilateral trading

8 In line with the second set of advice from EBA of October 2016 (Opinion of the European Banking Authority on the First Part of the Call for Advice on Investment Firms, www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1639033/Opinion%2Bof%2Bthe%2BEuropean%2BBanking%2BAuthority%2Bon%2Bthe">https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1639033/Opinion+of+the+European+Banking+Authority+on+the +First+Part+of+the+Call+for+Advice+on+Investment+Firms+%28EBA-Op-2016-16%29.pdf), the Commission proposed in November 2016 that investment firms identified as global or as other systemically important institutions (G-SIIs, O-SIIs) in accordance with Article 131 of the Capital Requirements Directive should still be subject to the revised Capital Requirements Regulation. In March 2017, there were eight investment firms in this group, all based in the UK. The Commission also proposed that other investment firms could be unaffected by these changes. See: Commission proposals to revise the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive of 23 November 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/banking-prudential-requirements-directive-2013-36-eu/upcoming_en

9 COM(2017) 542 final.

10 MiFID II will add the investment service ‘operation of an organised trading facility’ to this list.

facility), such requirements are missing and result in approximate coverage of the risks involved. While limited in some cases, the risks inherent in these activities for the firm and, as a consequence, for the firm’s clients and the wider markets they operate in are therefore not captured in a targeted way.

This gives rise to three main problems, which are assessed in the staff working document accompanying the proposals.

First, while the framework caters to some extent to the different types of business profiles of investment firms in the form of exemptions, it is a source of considerable regulatory complexity for many firms in general. Second, its detailed requirements and exemptions constitute a crude and risk-insensitive proxy for the actual risks incurred and posed by investment firms, which differ from those of banks. Third, due to its inherent complexity and lack of risk sensitivity, its implementation by Member States gives rise to fragmentation in the overall regulatory landscape for investment firms, with scope for harmful regulatory arbitrage. This could threaten the integrity and functioning of the single market.

The objectives of the proposals are to address the problems of the existing framework while facilitating the take-up and pursuit of business by investment firms where possible. Specifically, they set out a prudential framework that is better adapted to their business models. They consist of more appropriate and risk-sensitive requirements for investment firms, better targeting the risks they actually pose and incur across different types of business models. Finally, they constitute a more streamlined regulatory toolkit to enable prudential supervisors to carry out their oversight effectively.

As mandated by the Articles of the CRR, the review of the prudential framework for investment firms has been carried out in consultation with EBA, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the national competent authorities represented in these ESAs. Following a first call for advice by the Commission in December 2014, EBA published its first report on the current prudential framework for investment firms, calling for changes to the current approach for all but the largest and most systemic investment firms in December 201511. Following a second call for advice by the Commission in June 2016, EBA published a discussion paper for consultation focusing on a potential new prudential regime for the vast majority of investment firms in November 201612. Taking account of the feedback and the additional data it had gathered from investment firms together with national competent authorities, EBA published its final recommendations in September 201713. The proposals build on these recommendations in all key respects except for the identification of systemic investment firms, for the reasons explained in the accompanying staff working document and summarised under the section on ‘impact assessment’ below.

Consistency

with existing policy provisions in the policy area

11 EBA report on investment firms, response to Commission’s call for advice of December 2014 (EBA/Op/2015/20), www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359%2BReport%2Bon%2Binvestment%2Bfirms.pdf">www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359+Report+on+investment+firms.pdf

12 Designing a new prudential regime for investment firms (EBA/DP/2016/02), www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1647446%2BPaper%2Bon%2Ba%2Bnew%2Bprudential%2Bregime%2Bfor%2BIn">https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1647446+Paper+on+a+new+prudential+regime+for+In vestment+Firms+%28EBA-DP-2016-02 %29.pdf/cf75b87e-2db3-47a3-b1f3-8a30fa6962da

13 EBA opinion on the design of a new prudential framework for investment firms (EBA/Op/2017/11), www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1976637/EBA%2BAdvice%2Bon%2BNew%2BPrudential%2BFramework%2Bon%2BInve">www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1976637/EBA+Advice+on+New+Prudential+Framework+on+Inve stment+Firms+%28EBA-Op-2017-11 %29.pdf


This proposal complements the ongoing review of the CRR/CRD IV regime for credit institutions following the proposals adopted by the Commission on 23 November 2016, which allowed all non-systemic investment firms to opt out of its revised provisions14. This option was introduced in recognition of the fact that these revised provisions were not designed with most investment firms in mind and they would have created further complexity in the existing rulebook. The review of the prudential regime for most investment firms also put forward in this proposal was already well underway at the time, and subjecting them to an even more complex regime for a brief period pending the application of the new regime was considered disproportionate. This proposal therefore creates a new regime for the majority of investment firms by carving them entirely out of the CRR/CRD IV framework and leaving only systemic investment firms within the scope of the latter, including its revised provisions, in accordance with the revised approach for identifying them in this proposal.

The proposal is also consistent with MiFID and MiFID II / MiFIR. By setting prudential requirements that are tailored to the business and risks of investment firms, it clarifies when and why these requirements apply. As such, it overcomes some cases of arbitrary application of prudential requirements in the current framework, which arise because they are set first and foremost in relation to investment services listed in MiFID rather than the actual buildup of risks in the type and volumes of business conducted by investment firms.

MiFID II and MiFIR were adopted in the wake of the financial crisis and cover securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. The new framework reinforces and replaces the current MiFID I framework. In light of the revision of the prudential framework for investment firms, it is also necessary to ensure that third-country firms providing services cross-border in the EU do not enjoy a more favourable treatment than EU firms in terms of prudential, tax and supervisory requirements. This proposal would undertake targeted changes to the existing equivalence regime for third-country firms under Articles 46 and 47 of MiFIR to maintain a level playing field between EU firms and third-country firms.

• Consistency with other Union policies

Investment firms play an important role in facilitating investment flows across the EU. Accordingly, the review also forms part of the Commission initiatives to ensure a strong and fair single market with a well-functioning financial system and CMU in order to mobilise investments and boost growth and jobs15. A more suitable prudential and supervisory framework with lower compliance costs for investment firms should help (i) improve the overall conditions for businesses; (ii) boost market entry and competition in the process; and (iii) improve investors’ access to new opportunities and better ways of managing their risks.

The revised approach for identifying systemic investment firms that should remain under the CRR/CRD IV framework is also consistent with the objective of avoiding loopholes in the functioning of the Banking Union. Recent structural market developments indicate that third-country banking groups have increasingly complex structures in the EU, operating through entities that escape supervision by the ECB under the Single Supervisory Mechanism. As outlined in the Commission Communication of October 2017 on completing the Banking

14 Commission proposals to revise the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive of 23 November 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/banking-prudential-requirements-directive-2013-36-eu/upcoming_en

15 Communication on the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan, June 2017 (COM(2017) 292), https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/mid-term-review-capital-markets-union-action-plan_en

Union , ensuring that systemic investment firms remain in the CRR/CRD IV in accordance with the approach for identifying them in this proposal also brings them under the prudential supervision by banking supervisors and, for their operations in Member States participating in the Banking Union, under the prudential oversight of the ECB.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Legal basis

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union confers on the European institutions the competence to lay down appropriate provisions which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market (Article 114 TF EU). This includes legislation dealing with prudential rules and other rules for providers of financial services, in this case the provision of investment services. The provisions of this proposed Regulation replace those in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which are also based on Article 114 TFEU, as they relate to investment firms.

Subsidiarity

The proposal revises and simplifies the existing EU rules that govern the prudential treatment of investment firms in order to (i) better accommodate and address risks in their business models; (ii) improve the level playing field among firms; and (iii) enhance supervisory convergence. To achieve this, a new EU framework should replace the existing one rather than devolve these choices to regulatory frameworks in the Member States. This is because inve stment firms authorised under MiFID today routinely provide their services to customers across EU borders. Separate and disjointed changes to the rules by Member States could introduce competitive distortions and discriminatory treatment, which would fragment the single market. This could increase cases of harmful regulatory arbitrage, with possible knock-on effects for financial stability and investor protection in other Member States in case of problems. It could also skew the range and type of investment services that are available in a given Member State, to the possible detriment of overall market efficiency and investor choice. The revised rules should avoid undue regulatory disparities and ensure a level playing field for all authorised firms across the single market.

Proportionality

As a REFI T exercise, the key objective is to render the new framework more suitable,

relevant and proportionate compared to the existing framework for investment firms.

Accordingly, this proposal strikes a balance between ensuring that the requirements are at once:

• comprehensive and robust enough to capture the risks of investment firms in a prudentially sound manner; and

• flexible enough to cater to the various types of business models without impeding their ability to operate in a commercially viable way.

The proposal is mindful of ensuring that the costs of the regime in terms of both capital requirements and associated compliance and administrative costs, which are generated by the need to manage the staff and systems in order to run the new requirements as well as

16 COM(2917) 592 final.

report on compliance to supervisors, are kept to the minimum to achieve this balance.

As outlined in the accompanying staff working document, these associated costs are expected to decrease on an ongoing basis, with some new one-off costs at the outset. In terms of capital, an overarching policy choice that has underpinned work on the review and impacts the above is the objective of ensuring that, on aggregate, EU-wide capital requirements on investment firms do not increase too much. This translates into different distribution effects for some types of firms. These are alleviated by the provisions of the proposal so that the biggest impacts are phased in and capped.

Choice of

the instrument

A Regulation is chosen since its provisions replace those in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 relating to investment firms. This achieves the same direct legal effect as the current rulebook, ensuring that the objectives of the proposal are achieved consistently across the EU and helping create greater certainty and a level playing field for firms.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST ASSESSMENTS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post assessment of existing legislation

The assessment of the existing CRR/CRD IV framework, which is based on the analysis carried out by the EBA and ESMA in their 2015 report17 in particular and on the parallel work and analysis of the Commission services, is summarised in the accompanying staff working document.

It concludes that the existing rules, which are based on international regulatory standards for large banking groups and targeted at the risks of banks, only partially achieve their aims in terms of (i) ensuring sufficient capital for the risks of most investment firms; (ii) keeping compliance costs in check; (iii) securing a level playing field across the EU; and (iv) ensuring effective prudential oversight. Many of its provisions are considered ineffective and inefficient in this regard. The exception is large and systemic investment firms whose size, risk profile and interconnectedness with other participants in financial markets make them ‘bank-like’ in character.

For the rest, the status quo was assessed to create (i) excessive complexity and disproportionate compliance burdens especially for many small and medium-sized firms; (ii) poorly tailored and risk-insensitive prudential metrics and requirements for accurately capturing the risks of investment firms; and (iii) cases of diverging national implementation of the rules and a fragmented regulatory landscape across the EU.

• Stakeholder consultations

Stakeholders were consulted at several points during the review. In terms of the main milestones, following a first call for advice by the Commission in December 2014, EBA published a report on the current prudential framework for investment firms together with proposals for changes in December 2015. This constitutes a comprehensive and publicly

17 EBA report on investment firms, response to Commission’s call for advice of December 2014

(EBA/Op/2015/20), www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359">https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359-

20+Report+on+investment+firms.pdf


available analysis of the status quo, with data on numbers and types of nvestment firms in Member States. This analysis helped extend the review to stakeholders who may not be directly impacted by the rules and encouraged them to j oin in the subsequent discussion.

On 4 November 2016, EBA published a discussion paper for consultation focusing on a potential new prudential regime for invest ment firms. The paper was open for comments for 3 m onths. E BA published its draft recommendations on 3 July 2017, inviting comments from stakeholders. Its work was also supported by a detailed data-gathering exercise involving investment firms. This was carried out by national com petent authorities on behalf of EBA in two stages in 2016 and 2017.

Given the detailed public consultation and data collection undertaken by EBA, the Commission considered it unnecessary to run a general public consultation in parallel. The Commission services instead consulted stakeholders in a targeted fashion to gather further views on the main elements of the review. This included:

• a roundtable with industry stakeholders (investment firms, investors, law firms, consultants) on 27 Janua ry 2017 on EBA draft proposals for a future regime;

• a workshop on the costs of the current regime on 30 May 2017; and

a workshop on EBA’s draft final recommendations on 17 July 2017.

•

The review was discussed with Member States in the Financial Services Committee in March and October 2017 and in the Experts Group on Banking, Payments and Insurance in June and September 2017. Stakeholder input received on the Commission’s inception impact assessment published in March 2017 was also taken into account18. Finally, the Commission also considered input received previously in the wide-ranging call for evidence on the efficiency, consistency and coherence of the overall EU regulatory framework for financial services, in which several respondents pointed to various issues relevant for the review19.

Investment firms represent various business models, and their views tend to focus on aspects of the proposals specific to them. This complicates cross-cutting comparisons of the relative weight of stakeholder positions. However, in general the large majority of stakeholders welcome a tailored prudential framework more suited to their business models. They stress that their systemic relevance is limited and that capital requirements should focus on ensuring they can be wound down in an orderly way. In terms of specific requirements that apply to their particular business model, investment firms that conduct agency-only services and do not enter into transactions in financial instruments using their own balance sheet generally criticise proposals for linking capital requirements to the size of the client portfolios they manage in a linear way. While many firms that trade on own account agree that the existing framework for capturing market risk has some merit in light of the risks they incur and pose, other trading firms note that it exaggerates risks in the methods and products they trade in. These views have been taken into account in the calibration of the proposed new risk metrics (K-factors — see below) and the possibility to phase in and cap higher requirements.

Collection and use of

expertise

18 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-1546878_en

19 See e.g. various replies submitted in the Commission’s Call for Evidence of 2015 ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2015


The review was carried out based on comprehensive advice provided by EBA in consultation with ESMA, as required by the relevant Articles in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which constitute the legal basis for the review (notably Article 508(2) and (3)). The main public

outputs of the EBA were as follows:

the December 2015 report setting out a comprehensive assessment of the status quo and initial recommendations for changes;

3.

the November 2016 discussion paper published for consultation on the contours of a possible new regime; and


• the September 2017 final

the September 2017 final report with detailed recommendations.

The precise calibration of the recommendations for new capital requirements was supported by a detailed data-gathering exercise involving investment firms. This was carried out by national competent authorities on behalf of EBA in two stages in 2016 and 2017. The Commission was involved throughout and was able to benefit from the discussions assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the detailed policy recommendations as they unfolded.

• Impact assessment

According to the Better Regulation Toolbox (tool #9), no Commission impact assessment is necessary whenever an EU agency has been mandated to carry out policy design work and related analysis, to the extent that the Commission proposal does not deviate much from the agency’s recommendations and the Commission services consider its assessment to be of sufficient quality.

While the Regulatory Scrutiny Board examined a draft impact assessment for this initiative, a staff working document was deemed more appropriate given that the specific mandate of the review is based on the advice of the ESAs and their stakeholder consultation and technical work. The objective of the staff working document accompanying the proposals is therefore to explain the advice given by the ESAs, including the results of their analysis and consultation, while providing the Commission services’ views on its conclusions, with a view to guiding the Commission’s decision-making.

On capital requirements, EBA assesses that its advice would increase these on aggregate for all non-systemic EU investment firms by 10 % compared to Pillar 1 requirements today, and decrease them by 16 % compared to total requirements applied as a result of Pillar 2 add-ons. The way in which these impacts would be distributed among investment firms depends on their size, which investment services they provide and how the new capital requirements will apply to them. As detailed in the Staff Working Document accompanying the proposals, including its Annex II, the 10% aggregate increase in Pillar 1 requirements is the sum of considerably lower requirements for some and increases in excess of 10% for others. On available own funds, EBA finds that only a few firms would fail to have sufficient capital to comfortably meet the new requirements – this involves just a small number of investment advisors, trading firms and multiservice firms. However, for firms in this group whose increases would be over twice their current requirements, a cap could be granted for a number of years.

The accompanying staff working document concludes that, overall, EBA’s recommendations are considered to be an appropriate and proportionate means of achieving the review’s objectives in an effective and efficient manner compared to the status quo. More generally, EBA’s advice is a clear positive step towards a prudential framework for investment firms


that can both ensure that they operate on a sound financial basis while not hindering their commercial prospects. As such, it should support the review’s aims in a balanced fashion. On the one hand, it should help ensure that the risks of investment firms for customers and markets are addressed in a more targeted way both in their ongoing operations and in case they need to be wound down. On the other, it should help ensure that they can fully perform their role in facilitating investment flows across the EU, which is consistent with the aims of the CMU to mobilise savings and investments in order to boost growth and jobs.

It only diverges with EBA’s recommendations on the identification of systemic investment firms. Rather than postpone this so it is clarified via criteria to be developed in technical rules implementing the proposals as EBA recommends, it is considered more appropriate to set this out in the proposals themselves in order to ensure a regulatory level playing field between credit institutions and systemic investment firms. On this point, the proposals go beyond EBA’s advice in its opinion on the review of investment firms. However, the proposals thereby deliver on EBA's opinion on issues related to the UK’s decision to leave the EU20.

Regulatory

fitness and simplification

As outlined in the accompanying staff working document, simplification of the prudential rules for the vast majority of investment firms is expected to considerably reduce their administrative and compliance burdens. Various redundant regulatory and reporting requirements could be removed, allowing capital dedicated to regulatory purposes to switch to more productive uses. The proposals, by setting capital and other prudential requirements, including remuneration and governance, that are proportionate to investment firms alleviate for the first time the significant costs that firms incur as a result of the bank-centric requirements of the current regime. This would put an end to the complicated task of matching and reconciling business data to an ill-fitted regulatory framework and reporting regime.

Investment firms that are SMEs21 are expected to be among the main beneficiaries. A more proportionate and appropriate prudential framework for them should help improve the conditions for conducting business, and barriers to entry should decrease. For example, streamlining the onerous reporting framework should reduce administrative burdens and compliance costs for SMEs, including innovative firms seeking to grow through digital means. Similarly, by exempting small and non-interconnected investment firms from the current governance and remuneration rules as laid down under the current CRD IV/CRR the proposals would reduce administrative and compliance costs for these enterprises. Some one-off costs of transitioning to the new regime are to be expected as firms need to overhaul risk management systems, update compliance departments and revise contracts with law firms and other service providers that are currently used to facilitate compliance. However, the compliance cost savings should support the CMU’s aims in general by helping investment

20 Opinion of the European Banking Authority on issues related to the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EBA/Op/2017/12) of 12 October 2017, www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1756362/EBA%2BOpinion%2Bon%2BBrexit%2BIssues%2B%2528EBA-Op-201712">www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1756362/EBA+Opinion+on+Brexit+Issues+%28EBA-Op-2017-12 %29.pdf

21 As defined in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36-41), i.e. enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million.


firms play their role in mobilising savings from nvestors towards productive uses.

4.

In terms of compliance costs, firms are set to save tens of thousands to hundreds of


thousands of euros depending on the type and size of firm. How these reductions in

compliance costs relate and compare to changes in capital requirements for diff erent ty pes of

firms is not known at this stage, but should feature in the future monitoring and evaluation of the fra m ework.

Fundamental rights

This proposal strengthens the exercise of the right of various investment firms to conduct their business unencumbered by rules designed primarily for other types of economic actors.

The legislative measures in the proposals setting out rules for remuneration in investment firms observe the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the freedom to conduct a business and the right of collective bargaining and action.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal will not have implications for the EU budget.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The changes envisaged by the proposals should be evaluated in order to determ ine the degree to which the following objectives have been met:

• a simpler categorisation of investment firms in a manner that captures their diff erent risk profiles;

• a set of prudential rules, notably on capital, liquidity, remuneration and governance requirements, that are appropriate, proportionate and sensitive to the specific risks that investment firms are exposed to and that ensure that capital is assigned to where it is needed;

• a framework that corresponds to the risks inherent in the nature and range of activities underta ken by investment firms in a direct and discernible way and thereby supports taking up the business; and

• a streamlined supervisory toolkit to enable the full and accurate oversight of business practices and the associated risks.

To this end, some of the following information could be gathered as part of a future review in order to serve as indicators in evaluating the impact of the proposed changes: (i) compliance costs in terms of staff, legal advice and regulatory reporting; (ii) levels of capital requirements; (iii) other new costs e.g. from liquidity rules; (iv) evolution in the numbers of firms between the different categories; (v) changes in recourse to Pillar 2 add-ons by competent authorities; (vi) cases and impact of failure of investment firms under the new regime; and (vii) evolution of the size of investment firms in terms of assets and client order volum es.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Subject

matter and scope

The proposal sets out requirements in terms of own funds, levels of minimum capital, concentration risk, liquidity, reporting and public disclosure under this Regulation for all investment firms that are not systemic.

Level of

application

All investment firms within the scope of the Regulation are to apply its provisions on an individual basis. A derogation is provided for small and non-interconnected firms within banking groups subject to consolidated application and supervision under the CRR/CRD IV. A specific group capital requirement applies to groups containing only investment firms, with the parent company required to ensure sufficient capital to support its holdings in the investment firm subsidiaries.

Own funds

The capital instruments which qualify as own funds for investment firms to meet their capital requirements under this Regulation consist of the same items as under CRR/CRD IV. For this purpose, Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital should constitute at least 56 % of regulatory capital, with Additional Tier 1 (AT1) capital eligible for up to 44 % and Tier 2 capital eligible for up to 25 % of regulatory capital.

Capital requirements

All investment firms shall maintain an amount equal to the initial capital required for their authorisation as permanent minimum capital at all times. Small and non-interconnected investment firms shall either apply this requirement or, if higher, one based on a quarter of their previous year’s fixed overheads, calculated in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/48822, as their capital requirement. These firms are defined as those not authorised to safeguard and administer client assets, hold client money or deal on own account in their own name, or which have assets under management under both discretionary portfolio management and non-discretionary (advisory) arrangements that are less than EUR 1.2 billion, handle daily client orders that are less than EUR 100 million for cash trades or EUR 1 billion for derivatives, and have a balance sheet of less than EUR 100 million and total gross revenues from their investment activities that are less than EUR 30 million. Investment firms which are above these thresholds shall apply the highest of their permanent minimum capital requirement, their fixed overheads requirement, or their requirement based on the sum of the K-factor requirement.

K-factors

K-factors capture risks to customer (RtC), and for firms that deal on own account and execute client orders in their own name, risks to market (RtM) and risks to firm (RtF). RtC encompasses the following K-factors: assets under management (K-AUM), client money held (K-CMH), assets safeguarded and administered (K-ASA), and client orders handled (K-COH). RtM encompasses a K-factor for net position risk (K-NPR) based on the market risk

22 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/488 of 4 September 2014 amending Delegated

Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 as regards own funds requirements for firms based on fixed overheads (OJ L 78, 24.3.2015, p. 1-4).

requirements of the CRR (Title IV of Part Three), or alternatively if permitted by the competent authority, one based on margins posted with clearing members for trades guaranteed by the latter (K-CMG).

The threshold for an investment firm to be able to avail of the simplified standardised approach for market risk is amended to only refer to an absolute amount of total assets of EUR 300 million. RtF encompasses K-factors for trading counterparty default (K-TCD), for concentration risk in excess of defined thresholds (K-CON — see below) and for daily trading flow (K-DTF).

K-CMH, K-ASA, K-COH and K-DTF are calculated on the basis of a rolling average from the previous 3 months, while for K-AUM it is based on the previous year. These K-factors are multiplied by the corresponding coefficients set out in this Regulation in order to determine the capital requirement. Capital requirements for K-NPR are determined as per the CRR, and for K-CON and K-TCD using a simplified application of the corresponding requirements under CRR for, respectively, the treatment of large exposures in the trading book and counterparty credit risk.

Concentration risk

Investment firms should monitor and control their concentration risk, including in respect of their customers. Only firms which are not considered small and non-interconnected should report to competent authorities on their concentration risks, for instance in the form of a default of their counterparties, where they hold client money, securities and their own cash, and concentration risk from their earnings. Those firms that deal on own account or execute client orders in their own name should not exceed an exposure to a single or to connected counterparties equal to 25 % of their regulatory capital, subject to specific derogations for exposures to credit institutions or other investment firms. These limits may only be exceeded if additional K-CON capital requirements are met. For investment firms specialised in commodity derivatives or emission allowances or derivatives thereof which can have large concentrated exposures to the non-financial groups they belong to, these limits may be exceeded without additional capital as long as they serve group-wide liquidity or risk management purposes.

Liquidity

Investment firms should have internal procedures to monitor and manage their liquidity needs and be required to hold a minimum of one third of their fixed overheads requirements in liquid assets. These should consist of the list of high-quality liquid assets under the Commission Delegated Regulation on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio23, supplemented with the unencumbered own cash of the firm (which cannot include any client money) and for small and non-interconnected firms (those not subject to the K-factors), trade debtors and fees or commissions receivable within 30 days subject to specific conditions. In exceptional circumstances, investment firms may fall below the required threshold by monetising their liquid assets to cover liquidity needs, provided they notify their competent authority immediately.

23 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 of 10 October 2014 to supplement Regulation (EU)

No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council with regard to liquidity coverage requirement for credit institutions (OJ L 11, 17.1.2015, p. 1-36).

Supervisory

reporting and public disclosure

Investment firms are required to report to their competent authorities on their compliance with the prudential framework in accordance with detailed requirements to be articulated in Level 2 implementing measures. Firms which are subject to the K-factors have more granular reporting requirements than those subject to the capital requirement either in terms of permanent minimum capital or fixed overheads. These firms shall publicly disclose their levels of capital, their capital requirements, remuneration policies and practices, and their governance arrangements whereas small and non-interconnected firms shall not be subject to public disclosure requirements.

Transitional provisions

To facilitate a smooth transition for investment firms into the new regime, capital requirements would be subject to phase-in provisions as follows. For a period of five years from the date of application of this Regulation, investment firms for which capital requirement under the new regime would more than double compared to their existing capital requirement under the current framework should be allowed to limit their capital requirement to twice their relevant capital requirement under CRR/CRD IV. Further, for this period, new investment firms which were never subject to capital requirements under CRR/CRD IV could apply a limit at twice their fixed overheads requirement, while investment firms which were only subject to a requirement for initial capital under CRR/CRD IV could limit their capital requirement to twice this requirement to mitigate such increases. Finally, for a period of five years from the date of application of this Regulation, or until the date of application of the changes adopted to CRR/CRD IV as regards capital requirements for market risk pursuant to Article 1(84) of the Commission Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, whichever is earlier, investment firms subject to the corresponding provisions of this Regulation should continue to calculate their capital requirement for the trading book in accordance with the existing CRR.

Systemic investment firms

This proposal amends the definition of credit institutions in article 4(1)(1) of CRR. This will grant the status of credit institutions to large investment firms which carry out the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I of Mifid and have assets above EUR 30 billion. As a consequence, large investment firms of systemic importance will continue applying CRR/CRD IV and will be fully subject to the prudential and supervisory requirements applicable to credit institutions.. This includes the provisions on individual and consolidated supervision of the parent undertaking by the competent authorities. This will imply, among other things, that the operations of large investment firms established in Member States participating in the banking union are subject to direct supervision by the ECB in the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. This approach would also be in line with regulatory development in other jurisdictions (e.g. United States, Switzerland, Japan) where, since the financial crisis, the regulatory and supervisory treatment of systemic investment firms have been increasingly aligned with that of credit institutions.