2. Credibility

2.1 The business reorganisation plan should demonstrate with a high level of confidence that its application will restore the long-term viability of the institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU. Such demonstration should rely on credible assumptions, a scenario-based analysis and appropriate and concrete performance indicators capturing the performance of the entire group, the entities and the business lines that are not to be wound down or sold.

2.2 Any assumptions and performance indicators should be compared with appropriate sector-wide benchmarks and should be in line with available macro-economic forecasts.

2.3 Where the business reorganisation plan sets out a description of how the institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU will be able to provide an acceptable financial return, such return should be assessed by comparison to relevant peer institutions or entities and historical data.

2.4 The risks taken into account by the viability analysis in the business reorganisation plan should be consistent with institution-specific and broader risks identified by the competent authority, the central bank or other relevant authority or institution in the relevant markets.

2.5 The worst-case scenario should reflect a significant, albeit plausible, change in the underlying assumptions in comparison to the base-case scenario. These changes should focus in particular on the assumptions that are more relevant for the institution under reorganisation.

2.6 Restoration of the long-term viability, even under the worst-case scenario, should not involve further application of resolution tools beyond the scope of the resolution scheme under implementation when the business reorganisation plan was drawn up. The resolution authority should also ensure that the reorganisation of the institution or entity does not give rise to any material impediments to resolvability. If such material impediments are identified, the resolution authority should notify the institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU according to the procedure set out in Article 52(8) of Directive 2014/59/EU and outline relevant actions for how those impediments could be addressed.

2.7 The business reorganisation plan should demonstrate that the institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU is capable of fulfilling its internal capital adequacy assessment process in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 2013/36/EU.¹⁰

2.8 In order to determine whether the business reorganisation plan is reasonably likely to restore the long-term viability of the institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and

• (d) of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU, both authorities should assess the business reorganisation plan using the relevant provisions of the business model analysis framework and methodology, as provided in the EBA guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP)¹¹ . In this respect the resolution authority should not be expected to use such EBA guidelines beyond what can be assumed by its experience and competence.

¹⁰ Directive 2013/36/EU, OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338. 11 EBA/GL/2014/13, 19 December 2014.

1. Overzicht

1.1 Referenties

1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen

1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden

2. Geïdentificeerde eisen

3. Gerelateerde standaarden

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