DURCHFÜHRUNGSVERORDNUNG (EU) Nr. 710/2014 DER KOMMISSION vom 23. Juni 2014 zur Festlegung technischer Durchführungsstandards im Hinblick auf das Vorgehen bei der Beschlussfassung in Bezug auf gemeinsame Entscheidungen über institutsspezifische Aufsichtsanforderungen gemäß der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)
DURCHFÜHRUNGSVERORDNUNG (EU) Nr. 710/2014 DER KOMMISSION
vom 23. Juni 2014
zur Festlegung technischer Durchführungsstandards im Hinblick auf das Vorgehen bei der Beschlussfassung in Bezug auf gemeinsame Entscheidungen über institutsspezifische Aufsichtsanforderungen gemäß der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates
gestützt auf den Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
gestützt auf die Richtlinie 2013/36/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über den Zugang zur Tätigkeit von Kreditinstituten und die Beaufsichtigung von Kreditinstituten und Wertpapierfirmen, zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2002/87/EG und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinien 2006/48/EG und 2006/49/EG (1), insbesondere Artikel 113 Absatz 5 Unterabsatz 3,
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
(1)
Um eine gemeinsame Entscheidung über die Angemessenheit der Eigenmittel, die aufsichtlichen Liquiditätsüberwachungsmaßnahmen, das Liquiditätsniveau und die auf jedes Institut einer Gruppe und die Gruppe insgesamt angewandten Kapitalanforderungen herbeiführen zu können, ist ein effizienter Austausch zweckdienlicher Informationen von entscheidender Bedeutung.
(2)
Für die Sicherstellung einer kohärenten Anwendung des Verfahrens zur Herbeiführung gemeinsamer Entscheidungen ist es wichtig, dass jeder einzelne Schritt genau festgelegt wird. Ein eindeutiges Verfahren erleichtert zudem den Informationsaustausch, fördert das gegenseitige Verständnis, baut Beziehungen zwischen Aufsichtsbehörden auf und begünstigt eine wirkungsvolle Aufsicht.
(3)
Für die Risikobewertung und die Bewertung des Liquiditätsrisikoprofils einer Gruppe von Instituten sollte die konsolidierende Aufsichtsbehörde einen Überblick über die Tätigkeiten haben, die von allen, auch außerhalb der Europäischen Union tätigen Instituten der Gruppe ausgeübt werden. Aus diesem Grund sollte die Interaktion zwischen den in der Union zuständigen Behörden und den Aufsichtsbehörden in Drittländern vorangetrieben werden, damit die Unionsbehörden in die Lage versetzt werden, die globalen Risiken, denen die Gruppe ausgesetzt ist, zu beurteilen.
(4)
Eine fristgerechte, realistische Planung des Vorgehens bei der gemeinsamen Beschlussfassung ist von wesentlicher Bedeutung. Jede beteiligte zuständige Behörde sollte der konsolidierenden Aufsichtsbehörde fristgerecht einschlägige Informationen übermitteln. Für eine kohärente und einheitliche Darstellung und Interpretation der einzelnen Bewertungen ist die Einführung eines gemeinsamen Berichtsbogens für die Ergebnisse des institutsspezifischen Prozesses der aufsichtlichen Überprüfung und Bewertung erforderlich.
(5)
Zu Gewährleistung einheitlicher Anwendungsbedingungen sind die bei der Durchführung der gemeinsamen Risikobewertung und der Herbeiführung gemeinsamer Entscheidungen zu befolgenden Schritte in Anerkenntnis dessen festzulegen, dass manche Aufgaben der gemeinsamen Risikobewertung und des gemeinsamen Entscheidungsverfahrens parallel durchgeführt werden können, während andere nacheinander erfolgen müssen.
(6)
Zur Erleichterung gemeinsamer Entscheidungen ist es wichtig, dass die am Entscheidungsprozess beteiligten zuständigen Behörden im Dialog miteinander stehen. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Zeit vor der endgültigen Festlegung der Risikobewertungsberichte und der gemeinsamen Entscheidungen.
(7)
Die konsolidierende Aufsichtsbehörde sollte den beteiligten zuständigen Behörden sämtliche einschlägigen Informationen zur Verfügung stellen, die diese für die Erstellung ihrer individuellen Risikobewertung und das Herbeiführen der gemeinsamen Entscheidungen über Kapital und Liquidität benötigen.
(8)
Der Bericht mit der Risikobewertung der Gruppe stellt für die zuständigen Behörden ein Kerndokument dar, das ihnen das Verständnis, die Beurteilung und die Erfassung der Bewertung des Gesamtrisikoprofils der Bankengruppe ermöglicht, damit sie eine gemeinsame Entscheidung über die Angemessenheit der Eigenmittel sowie der Höhe der Eigenmittel, die die Gruppe vorhalten muss, herbeiführen können. Der Bericht mit der Bewertung des Liquiditätsrisikoprofils der Gruppe stellt für die zuständigen Behörden ein wichtiges Dokument dar, das ihnen das Verständnis, die Beurteilung und die Erfassung der Bewertung des Gesamtliquiditätsprofils und der Gruppe ermöglicht. Damit die Gesamtrisikobewertung und die Liquiditätsrisikobewertung der Gruppe kohärent dargestellt, sinnvolle Erörterungen zwischen den zuständigen Behörden unterstützt und eine belastbare Einschätzung der Risiken grenzübergreifender Bankengruppen ermöglicht werden können, sollten für diese Berichte gemeinsame Berichtsbögen festgelegt werden.
(9)
Obgleich anerkannt wird, dass die Ergebnisse des in Artikel 97 der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU festgelegten Prozesses der aufsichtlichen Überprüfung und Bewertung je nach Umsetzung des genannten Artikels in den jeweiligen nationalen Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten unterschiedlich dokumentiert werden können, wobei hier auch die von der Europäischen Aufsichtsbehörde (Europäische Bankaufsichtsbehörde) (EBA) im Rahmen von Artikel 107 Absatz 2 der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU herausgegebenen Leitlinien berücksichtigt werden, sollten mittels standardisierten Berichtsbögen kohärente Formate für die Mitteilung der Feststellungen und Ergebnisse aus dem aufsichtlichen Überprüfungsprozess vorgegeben werden, damit gemeinsame Entscheidungen herbeigeführt werden können.
(10)
Weder der Bericht über die Bewertung des Risikos der Gruppe noch der Bericht mit der Bewertung des Liquiditätsrisikos der Gruppe sollte sich auf eine reine Zusammenstellung von einzelnen Beiträgen zuständiger Behörden beschränken. Beide Berichte sollten als Instrument zur Durchführung der gemeinsamen Bewertung der Risiken der gesamten Gruppe genutzt werden, wobei die Wechselwirkung zwischen gruppeninternen Posten zu analysieren ist.
(11)
Die Festlegung eindeutiger Verfahren hinsichtlich des Inhalts und der Artikulierung der gemeinsamen Entscheidung stellt sicher, dass eine umfassende Begründung der Entscheidung gegeben wird. Zudem erleichtert dies die Überwachung gemeinsamer Entscheidungen und ihrer Durchsetzung.
(12)
Zur Klarstellung der Verfahren, die nach der Herbeiführung der gemeinsamen Entscheidung zu befolgen sind, zur Herstellung von Transparenz bezüglich der Behandlung des Ergebnisses der Entscheidung und zur Erleichterung angemessener Folgemaßnahmen, soweit diese erforderlich sind, sollten bezüglich der Mitteilung der umfassend begründeten, gemeinsamen Entscheidung und der Überwachung ihrer Durchführung Standards festgelegt werden.
(13)
Zur Sicherstellung eines kohärenten, transparenten Ansatzes, einer angemessenen Beteiligung der zuständigen Behörden und der Mitteilung des Ergebnisses sollte das bei Aktualisierungen gemeinsamer Entscheidungen zu befolgende Verfahren festgelegt werden.
(14)
Das in Artikel 113 der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU beschriebene Vorgehen bei gemeinsamen Entscheidungen beinhaltet auch das Verfahren, das zu befolgen ist, wenn keine gemeinsame Entscheidung erzielt wird. Zur Sicherstellung einheitlicher Anwendungsbedingungen bezüglich dieses Verfahrensaspektes, bezüglich der Artikulierung umfassend begründeter Entscheidungen und bezüglich der Behandlung der von den Aufsichtsbehörden des Aufnahmestaates zum Ausdruck gebrachten Ansichten und Vorbehalte sollten Standards festgelegt werden, die sich auch auf den Zeitplan, nach dem Entscheidungen zu treffen sind, wenn keine gemeinsame Entscheidung vorliegt, sowie die Mitteilung der Einzelheiten solcher Entscheidungen erstrecken.
(15)
Diese Durchführungsverordnung stützt sich auf den von der EBA bei der Kommission vorgelegten Entwurf technischer Durchführungsstandards.
(16)
Die EBA führte bezüglich des Entwurfs der technischen Durchführungsstandards, auf denen die vorliegende Durchführungsverordnung beruht, öffentliche Konsultationen durch. Ferner analysierte sie die damit verbundenen möglichen Kosten und Nutzen und holte die Stellungnahme der kraft Artikel 37 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1093/2010 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (2) eingesetzten Interessengruppe Bankensektor ein.
HAT FOLGENDE VERORDNUNG ERLASSEN:
Diese Verordnung ist in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich und gilt unmittelbar in jedem Mitgliedstaat.
KAPITEL IV AKTUALISIERUNG UND AUSSERORDENTLICHE AKTUALISIERUNG GEMEINSAMER ENTSCHEIDUNGEN UND IN ERMANGELUNG EINER GEMEINSAMEN ENTSCHEIDUNG GETROFFENER ENTSCHEIDUNGEN
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (million EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
Overall SREP assessment
Overall SREP score (following the capital and liquidity adequacy assessment):
This section should contain a summary of the assessments made in the sections below.
Capital adequacy assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the capital adequacy; (2) the preliminary proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of own funds at the respective entity level and any required level of own funds in excess of the requirements set out in Chapter Four of Title VII of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) and in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR); (3) the outlook for next assessment period; and, (4) a description of any other capital-related supervisory measures (1).
Within this section please also describe how SREP capital estimates have been derived and how ICAAP capital estimates have been taken into account, if assessed as reliable.
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the liquidity adequacy; (2) the proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of liquidity at the respective entity level and any required supervisory measures, where applicable; (3) the outlook for the next assessment period; and, (4) a description of any other supervisory measures to address the deficiencies identified, where applicable.
Depending on the timing of the joint decision on liquidity, this assessment should either mirror the findings summarised in the Liquidity SREP report (see template in Annex 5), or provide an updated assessment.
A. Business model analysis (viability and sustainability)
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the business model, strategy and financial position within the observed period; (2) the supervisory assessment of the viability of the current business model and sustainability of the strategy; and, (3) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures.
B. Internal governance arrangements
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the internal governance framework within the observed period; (2) deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to internal governance requirements; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) actions to be taken by the institution, and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C. Risks to solvency
C.1 Credit and counterparty risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.2 Settlement/delivery risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.3 Inter-concentration risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.5 IRRBB
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.6 Operational risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.7 Risk of excessive leverage
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.8 Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of other identified risks to solvency in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity and funding risks in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Depending on the timing of the joint decision on liquidity, this assessment should either mirror the findings summarised in the Liquidity SREP report (see template in Annex 5), or provide an updated assessment.
Should the assessment of liquidity and funding risks highlight significant issues in relation to funding risk requiring the allocation of capital to mitigate impacts from an increased cost of funding, please describe how it is reflected in the additional own funds requirements, if relevant.
E. Systemic risk
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) the outlook for the next assessment period; and, (3) any supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures.
F. ICAAP review
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the findings of the assessment of the reliability of the ICAAP framework and institution’s own quantification of risks and the consequent allocation of appropriate internal capital; (2) a description of the evolution of ICAAP framework in the observed period; (3) deficiencies identified; (4) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to the ICAAP; (5) mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and (6) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
The section should also have a statement on whether ICAAP estimates are considered reliable and could serve as an input into the assessment of capital adequacy.
G. Inter-risk diversification effects
Taking into account the outcome of the ICAAP assessments and internal capital estimates, and only in case diversification effects are recognised, please provide within this section a description of the impact of diversification effects and define the extent to which benefits from the diversification effects can be taken into account in the determination of capital adequacy.
Within this section please summarise the results and their impact on capital adequacy of institutions own stress tests and their reconciliation with supervisory stress tests, including the explanation of how the stress testing buffer was derived, where applicable.
Other relevant information
Within this section please provide other information deemed relevant by the competent authority for the purposes of the group risk assessment and not provided above.
Quantitative Indicators agreed by the consolidating supervisor and the host EEA competent authorities (pursuant to RTS/ITS on colleges of supervisors)
Please list any quantitative indicators agreed to be shared while developing the joint risk assessment report for the purposes of reaching a joint decision.
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (mln EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
SREP elements
Score
A.
Business Model (viability and sustainability)
B.
Internal governance arrangements
C.
Risks to solvency
C.1
Credit and counterparty risk
C.2
Settlement / Delivery risk
C.3
Inter-concentration risk
C.4
Market risk
C.5
IRRBB
C.6
Operational risk
C.7
Risk of excessive leverage
C.8
Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
C.9
Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
D.
Risks to liquidity
[as per the outcome of the Liquidity SREP report]
These scores should be consistent with the respective assessments under the liquidity joint decision. Depending on the timing of the joint decision on liquidity, this assessment should either mirror the findings summarised in the liquidity SREP report, or provide updated assessment.
E.
Systemic risk (risk that institution poses to financial system)
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (mln EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
SREP elements
Memoranda items
Overall SREP capital requirement/estimate (including supervisory proxy, where applicable) (in mln EUR)
Pillar 1 capital requirements, where applicable (in mln EUR)
ICAAP estimate (in mln EUR)
A.
Business Model (viability and sustainability)
B.
Internal governance arrangements
C.
Risks to solvency (risks and controls)
C.1
Credit and counterparty risk
C.2
Settlement / Delivery risk
C.3
Inter-concentration risk
C.4
Market risk
C.5
IRRBB
C.6
Operational risk
C.7
Risk of excessive leverage
C.8
Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
C.9
Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
D.
Risks to liquidity — Funding risk (cost of funding perspective)
E.
Systemic risk (risk that institution poses to financial system)
F.
Inter-risk diversification effects
G.
Capital planning / stress test buffer (where applicable)
Capital planning / Stress testing buffer based on the outcomes of ICAAP stress tests, where applicable
Reconciliation of ICAAP stress tests with supervisory stress tests and resulting capital planning / stress testing buffer, where applicable
SREP capital outcome (preliminary proposal for joint decision discussion)
Overall capital requirement/estimate
Total Pillar 1 capital requirement
Total ICAAP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Capital adequacy assessment (capital is assessed as adequate/inadequate)
Adequate/Inadequate
Additional own funds requirement
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Memoranda items (values at reference date)
Total own funds (mln EUR) at reference date
Tier 1 own funds (mln EUR) at reference date
Common Equity Tier 1 own funds (mln EUR) at reference date
Total risk weighted assets (mln EUR) at reference date
The own funds requirements applicable in the home Member State in accordance with Article 92 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, taking into account any measures adopted or recognised in accordance with Article 458 of that Regulation and the transitional arrangements laid down in Part X of that Regulation
The level of the capital conservation buffer that the institution is required to maintain in accordance with Article 129 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of the institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer to be maintained by the institution in accordance with Article 130 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of any systemic risk buffer that the institution is required to maintain in accordance with Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of any G-SII buffer or O-SII buffer that the institution is required to maintain in accordance with Article 128(3) and (4) of Directive 2013/36/EU
Any other prudential requirements applicable to the institution, including under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, macro-prudential measures and recommendations of EBA and ESRB
The Group risk assessment report shall include as annexes all SREP reports submitted by the relevant competent authorities. The group risk assessment report shall be supplemented with summaries of scores (Table 1) and the capital adequacy assessment (Table 2).
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (million EUR) at reference date:
Overall SREP assessment of the Group
Overall SREP score (following the capital and liquidity adequacy assessment):
This section should contain a summary of the assessments made in the sections below,
Capital adequacy assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the capital adequacy; (2) the proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of own funds at the group level and any required level of own funds in excess of the requirements set out in Chapter Four of Title VII of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) and in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR); (3) the outlook for the next assessment period; and, (3) a description of any other capital-related supervisory measures (1).
Within this section please also describe how SREP capital estimates have been derived and how ICAAP capital estimates have been taken into account, if assessed as reliable.
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the liquidity adequacy; (2) the proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of liquidity at the group level and any required supervisory measures, where applicable; (3) the outlook for the next assessment period; and, (4) a description of any other supervisory measures to address the deficiencies identified, where applicable.
Depending on the timing of the joint decision on liquidity, this assessment should either mirror the findings summarised in the Group liquidity risk assessment report (see template in Annex 7), or provide an updated assessment.
A. Business model analysis (viability and sustainability)
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the business model, strategy and financial position within the observed period; (2) the supervisory assessment of the viability of the current business model and sustainability of the strategy; and, (3) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures.
B. Internal governance arrangements
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the internal governance framework within the observed period; (2) deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to internal governance requirements; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) actions to be taken by the institution, and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C. Risks to solvency
C.1 Credit and counterparty risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.2 Settlement/delivery risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.3 Inter-concentration risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.5 IRRBB
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.6 Operational risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.7 Risk of excessive leverage
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C.8 Other risks material to the institution, as applicable (please specify)
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of other identified risks to solvency in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity and funding risks in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures including, capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Depending on the timing of the joint decision on liquidity, this assessment should either mirror the findings summarised in the Group liquidity risk assessment report (see template in Annex 7), or provide an updated assessment.
Should the assessment of liquidity and funding risks highlight significant issues in relation to funding risk requiring the allocation of capital to mitigate impacts from an increased cost of funding, please describe how it is reflected in the additional own funds requirements, if relevant.
E. Systemic risk
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of the risk in the observed period; (2) the outlook for the next assessment period; and, (3) any supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures.
F. ICAAP review
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the findings of the assessment of the reliability of the ICAAP framework and institution’s own quantification of risks and the consequent allocation of appropriate internal capital; (2) a description of the evolution of ICAAP framework in the observed period; (3) deficiencies identified; (4) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to the ICAAP; (5) mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and (6) any relevant supervisory measures, including capital and non-capital supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
The section should also have a statement on whether ICAAP estimates are considered reliable and could serve as an input into the assessment of capital adequacy.
G. Inter-risk diversification effects
Taking into account the outcome of the ICAAP assessments and internal capital estimates, and only in case diversification effects are recognised, please provide within this section a description of the impact of diversification effects and define the extent to which benefits from the diversification effects can be taken into account in the determination of capital adequacy.
Within this section please summarise the results and their impact on capital adequacy of institutions own stress tests and their reconciliation with supervisory stress tests, including the explanation of how the stress testing buffer was derived, where applicable.
Other relevant information
Within this section please provide other information deemed relevant by the competent authorities for the purposes of the group risk assessment and not provided above (e.g. information needed to meet requirements of Article 6(5) of this Implementing Regulation.
Quantitative Indicators agreed by the consolidating supervisor and the host EEA competent authorities (pursuant to RTS/ITS on colleges of supervisors)
Please list any quantitative indicators agreed to be shared while developing the joint risk assessment report for the purposes of reaching a joint decision.
SREP capital outcome (preliminary proposal for joint decision discussion)
Overall capital requirement/estimate
Total Pillar 1 capital requirement
Total ICAAP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Total Pillar 1 capital requirement
Total ICAAP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Total Pillar 1 capital requirement
Total ICAAP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Capital adequacy assessment (capital is assessed as adequate/inadequate)
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
Additional own funds requirement
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
I.
Diversification effects, including intra-group (-)
Intra-group concentration (+)
Intra-group support arrangements (-)
Other intra-group items (+/-)
J.
Joint decision outcome (based on preliminary proposal (H), reflecting impact of intra-group items, and results of the dialogue between competent authorities)
Overall capital requirement/estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Total SREP capital estimate
Capital adequacy assessment (capital is assessed as adequate/inadequate)
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
Additional own funds requirement
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Sum of components or holistic approach (formulated as an amount or ratio, or combination of both)
Common Equity Tier 1 own funds (mln EUR) at reference date
Total risk weighted assets (mln EUR) at reference date
The own funds requirements applicable in the home Member State in accordance with Article 92 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 taking into account any measures adopted or recognised under Article 458 of that Regulation and the transitional arrangements under Part X of that Regulation
The level of the capital conservation buffer required to be maintained by the institution in accordance with Article 129 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of the institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer to be maintained by the institution in accordance with Article 130 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of the systemic risk buffer to be maintained by the institution, if applicable, in accordance with Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU
The level of the any G-SII buffer or O-SII buffer, as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) respectively of Article 128 of Directive 2013/36/EU, to be held by the institution
Any other prudential requirements applicable to the institution, including under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, macro-prudential measures and recommendations of EBA and ESRB
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (million EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
Overall Assessment of Liquidity Risk in SREP
Overall liquidity risk Score :
This section should contain a summary of the individual assessments below.
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the liquidity adequacy; (2) the proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of liquidity at the respective entity level and any supervisory measures, where applicable, to address significant matters and material findings; and, (3) the outlook for the next assessment period.
A. Assessment of liquidity risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
B. Assessment of funding risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of funding risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C. Assessment of liquidity and funding risk management
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity and funding risk management in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Other relevant information
Within this section please provide other information deemed relevant by the competent authority for the purposes of the group risk assessment and not provided above.
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (mln EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
Liquidity elements in SREP
Outcome of liquidity risk assessment
(in mln euros or ratio or narrative information on measures)
A.
Liquidity adequacy assessment
Adequate/Inadequate
B.
Proposal for joint decision - Quantitative measures (Articles 104 and 105)
Specific liquidity buffer requirements [To be specified in terms of LCR eligible assets post-introduction of LCR as a standard (optional before)]
Specific stable funding requirements [To be specified on NSFR definition post-NSFR introduced as a standard (optional before)]
Other quantitative restrictions/requirements
D
Proposal for joint decision — Qualitative measures (Articles 104 and 105)
Memoranda items (values at reference date)
Actual LCR ratio or any other equivalent domestic ratio (until LCR implementation in CRR)
Actual NSFR ratio or any other equivalent domestic ratio (until NSFR implementation in CRR)
LCR buffer requirement, if any ('Pillar 1')
NSFR stable funding requirement, if any ('Pillar 1')
Any other prudential requirements applicable to the institution, including under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, macro-prudential measures and recommendations of EBA and ESRB
The Group liquidity risk assessment report includes as annexes all liquidity risk assessment reports submitted by the relevant competent authorities. The group risk assessment report is supplemented with summaries of scores (Table 1) and liquidity adequacy assessment (Table 2).
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (million EUR) at reference date:
Overall Assessment of Liquidity Risk in SREP
Overall liquidity risk Score :
This section should contain a summary of the individual assessments below.
Liquidity Adequacy Assessment
Within this section please provide: (1) a summary of the assessment of the liquidity adequacy; (2) the proposal for the joint decision, including a statement on the adequacy of liquidity at the group level and any supervisory measures, where applicable, to address significant matters and material findings; and, (3) the outlook for the next assessment period.
A. Assessment of liquidity risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
B. Assessment of funding risk
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of funding risk in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
C. Assessment of liquidity and funding risk management
Score:
Within this section please provide: (1) a description of the evolution of liquidity and funding risk management in the observed period; (2) control deficiencies identified; (3) issues of non-compliance with the CRR and the CRD in relation to risk; (4) the outlook for the next assessment period; (5) risk mitigating actions to be taken by the institution; and, (6) any relevant supervisory measures to address the deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Other relevant information
Within this section please provide other information deemed relevant by the competent authorities for the purposes of the group risk assessment and not provided above (e.g. information needed to meet requirements of Article 6(5) of this Implementing Regulation
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
[based on national classification until common categorisation approach is in place as per EBA Guidelines for common SREP methodologies and procedures; the category to which the institution is assigned shall reflect also its systemic importance]
Reference date:
Total assets (mln EUR) at reference date:
Competent authority:
Liquidity elements in SREP
Outcome of liquidity risk assessment
Outcome of liquidity risk assessment
Outcome of liquidity risk assessment
(in mln Euros or ratio or narrative information on measures]
(in mln Euros or ratio or narrative information on measures]
(in mln Euros or ratio or narrative information on measures]
A.
Liquidity adequacy assessment
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
Adequate/Inadequate
B.
Proposal for joint decision - Quantitative measures (Articles 104 and 105)
Specific liquidity buffer requirements [To be specified in terms of LCR eligible assets post-introduction of LCR as a standard (optional before)]
Specific stable funding requirements [To be specified on NSFR definition post-NSFR introduced as a standard (optional before)]
Other quantitative restrictions/requirements
D
Proposal for joint decision — Qualitative measures (Articles 104 and 105)
Actual LCR ratio or any other equivalent domestic ratio (until LCR implementation in CRR)
Actual NSFR ratio or any other equivalent domestic ratio (until NSFR implementation in CRR)
LCR buffer requirement, if any ('Pillar 1')
NSFR stable funding requirement, if any ('Pillar 1')
Any other prudential requirements applicable to the institution, including under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, macro-prudential measures and recommendations of EBA and ESRB
