+374. The overall SREP assessment should be reflected in a viability score based on the …

374. The overall SREP assessment should be reflected in a viability score based on the …

The overall SREP assessment should be reflected in a viability score based on the considerations specified in Table 12 and clearly documented in a summary of the overall SREP assessment. This annual summary should also include the overall SREP score and scores for elements of the SREP, and any supervisory findings made over the course of the previous 12 months.

Table 12. Supervisory considerations for assigning the overall SREP score

Score Supervisory view Considerations

The risks identified pose a low level of risk to the viability of the investment firm.	• • •	The investment firm’s business model and strategy do not raise concerns. The internal governance and investment firm-wide control arrangements do not raise concerns. The investment firm’s risks to capital and liquidity pose a non-material/a very low risk of a significant prudential impact.
1	• • •	The composition and quantity of own funds held do not raise concerns. The investment firm’s liquidity position and funding profile do not raise concerns. Where relevant, no material concerns about the credibility and feasibility of the investment firm’s recovery plan including its overall recovery capacity.
The risks identified pose a medium-low level of risk to the viability of the investment firm.	• • •	There is a low to medium level of concern about the investment firm’s business model and strategy. There is a low to medium level of concern about the investment firm’s governance or investment firm-wide control arrangements. There is a low to medium level of risk of a significant prudential impact caused by risks to capital and liquidity.
2	• • •	There is a low to medium level of concern about the composition and quantity of own funds held. There is a low to medium level of concern about the investment firm's liquidity position and/or funding profile. Where relevant, there is a low to medium level of concern about the credibility and feasibility of the investment firm’s recovery plan including its overall recovery capacity.
Score Supervisory view The risks identified pose a medium-high level of risk to the viability of the investment firm.	• • •	Considerations There is a medium to high level of concern about the investment firm’s business model and strategy. There is a medium to high level of concern about the investment firm’s governance or investment firm-wide control arrangements. There is a medium to high level of risk of a significant prudential impact caused by risks
3	• • •	to capital and liquidity. There is a medium to high level of concern about the composition and quantity of own funds held by the investment firm. There is a medium to high level of concern about the investment firm’s liquidity position and/or funding profile. Where relevant, there is a medium to high level of concern about the credibility and feasibility of the investment firm’s recovery plan including its overall recovery capacity.
The risks identified pose a high level of risk to the viability of the investment firm.	• • •	There is a high level of concern about the investment firm’s business model and strategy. There is a high level of concern about the investment firm’s governance or investment firm-wide control arrangements. There is a high level of risk of a significant prudential impact caused by risks to capital and liquidity.
4	• • •	There is a high level of concern about the composition and quantity of own funds held by the investment firm. There is a high level of concern about the investment firm’s liquidity position and/or funding profile. Where relevant, there is a high level of concern about the credibility and feasibility of the investment firm’s recovery plan including its overall recovery capacity.
F The investment firm is considered to be ‘failing or likely to fail’.	•	There is an immediate risk to the viability of the investment firm.
Score Supervisory view	•	Considerations The investment firm meets the conditions for failing or likely to fail, as specified in Article 32(4) of Directive 2014/59/EU²⁴ .

²⁴ In particular, the competent authority is of the view that (1) the investment firm infringes, or there are objective elements to support a determination that the investment firm will, in the near future, infringe, the requirements for continuing authorisation in a way that would justify the withdrawal of the authorisation by the competent authority, for reasons including but not limited to the fact that the investment firm has incurred or is likely to incur losses that will deplete all or a significant amount of its own funds; (2) the investment firm’s assets are, or there are objective elements to support a determination that the investment firm’s assets will, in the near future, be, less than its liabilities; or (3) the investment firm is, or there are objective elements to support a determination that the investment firm will, in the near future, be, unable to pay its debts or other liabilities as they fall due. Article 32(4)(d) of Directive 2014/59/EU also identifies extraordinary public support criteria for the determination of whether an investment firm is failing or likely to fail, but these criteria are not considered for the purpose of SREP and the determination made by the competent authorities.

1. Ülevaade

Pealkiri	Regulatsioon

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded
Allikas	Nõue

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
Allikas	Nõue

EBA - Published by the European Banking Authority at https://www.eba.europa.eu/