COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 710/2014 of 23 June 2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to conditions of application of the joint decision process for institution-specific prudential requirements according to Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance)
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 710/2014
of 23 June 2014
laying down implementing technical standards with regard to conditions of application of the joint decision process for institution-specific prudential requirements according to Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to 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 (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 113(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Efficient exchange of appropriate information is essential for reaching a joint decision on the adequacy of own funds, the supervisory measures relating to liquidity supervision, the level of liquidity and capital requirements applied to each institution of a group and the group.
(2)
In order to ensure a consistent application of the process for the reaching of a joint decision, it is important that each step is well defined. A clear process also facilitates exchange of information, promotes mutual understanding, develops relationships between supervisory authorities and promotes effective supervision.
(3)
In order to perform the risk assessment and the assessment of the liquidity risk profile for a group of institutions, the consolidating supervisor should have an overview of the activities carried out by all of the institutions within the group, including institutions operating outside the Union. Interaction between the competent authorities in the Union and third-country supervisors should therefore be promoted in order to enable the former to assess the global risks faced by the group.
(4)
Timely and realistic planning for the joint decision process is essential. Every competent authority involved should provide the consolidating supervisor with relevant information on a timely basis. In order for individual assessments to be presented and interpreted in a consistent and uniform manner, it is necessary to introduce a common template for the results of the supervisory review and evaluation processes specific to each institution.
(5)
To ensure uniform condition of application, the steps to be followed for the performance of the joint risk assessment and the reaching of the joint decision should be established, recognising that some tasks of the joint risk assessment and joint decision process may be performed in parallel and others sequentially.
(6)
To facilitate the reaching of joint decisions, it is important that the competent authorities involved in the decision-making process engage in a dialogue with each other, in particular before finalizing the risk assessment reports and joint decisions.
(7)
The consolidating supervisor should provide the competent authorities involved with all relevant information necessary for the preparation of their individual risk assessment and the reaching of the capital and liquidity joint decisions.
(8)
The report containing the risk assessment of the group is a core document enabling competent authorities to understand and record the assessment of the overall risk profile of the banking group for the purpose of reaching a joint decision on the adequacy of own funds and level of own funds that the group is required to hold. The report containing the assessment of the liquidity risk profile of the group is an important document enabling competent authorities to understand and record the assessment of the overall liquidity profile of the group. In order to present the overall risk assessment and liquidity risk assessment of the group in a consistent manner, support meaningful discussions among competent authorities and enable a robust assessment of cross border banking group risks, common templates for these reports should be established.
(9)
Whilst recognising that outcomes of the supervisory review and evaluation process specified in Article 97 of Directive 2013/36/EU may be documented differently across the Member States depending on the implementation of that Article in the national legislation while taking into account the guidelines issued by the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA) in accordance with Article 107(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU, standard templates should provide consistent formats for the communication of findings and outcomes of the supervisory review process for the purposes of reaching joint decisions.
(10)
Neither the group risk assessment report nor the report containing the group liquidity risk assessment should be limited to an aggregation of individual contributions from competent authorities. Both reports should be used as a tool for performing the joint assessment of the risks of the whole group and analysing the interaction of intra-group items.
(11)
Establishing clear processes for the content and articulation of the joint decision should ensure that joint decisions are fully reasoned and facilitate the monitoring of joint decisions and their enforcement.
(12)
In order to clarify the process to be followed once the joint decision is reached, provide transparency on the treatment of the outcome of the decision and facilitate appropriate follow-up action where needed, standards regarding the communication of the fully reasoned joint decision and the monitoring of its implementation should be established.
(13)
The process to be followed for the updates of joint decisions should be established in order to ensure a consistent and transparent approach as well as appropriate involvement of competent authorities and the communication of the outcomes.
(14)
The joint decision process under Article 113 of Directive 2013/36/EU includes the process to be followed where no joint decision is reached. To ensure uniform conditions of application on this aspect of the process, the articulation of fully reasoned decisions and the treatment of views and reservations expressed by host supervisors, standards covering the timeline for taking decisions in the absence of a joint decision and the communication of the details of such decisions should be established.
(15)
This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards submitted by EBA to the Commission;
(16)
EBA has conducted open public consultations on the draft implementing technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2);
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
[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
