KOMISJONI RAKENDUSMÄÄRUS (EL) nr 710/2014, 23. juuni 2014, milles sätestatakse rakenduslikud tehnilised standardid seoses krediidiasutuse- või investeerimisühingupõhiste usaldatavusnõuete kohta ühisotsuste tegemise protsessi kohaldamise tingimustega vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivile 2013/36/EL (EMPs kohaldatav tekst)
KOMISJONI RAKENDUSMÄÄRUS (EL) nr 710/2014,
23. juuni 2014,
milles sätestatakse rakenduslikud tehnilised standardid seoses krediidiasutuse- või investeerimisühingupõhiste usaldatavusnõuete kohta ühisotsuste tegemise protsessi kohaldamise tingimustega vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivile 2013/36/EL
võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 26. juuni 2013. aasta direktiivi 2013/36/EL mis käsitleb krediidiasutuste tegevuse alustamise tingimusi ning krediidiasutuste ja investeerimisühingute usaldatavusnõuete täitmise järelevalvet, millega muudetakse direktiivi 2002/87/EÜ ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks direktiivid 2006/48/EÜ ja 2006/49/EÜ, (1) eriti selle artikli 113 lõike 5 kolmandat lõiku,
ning arvestades järgmist:
(1)
Asjakohase teabe tõhus vahetamine on esmatähtis, et jõuda ühisotsusele omavahendite adekvaatsuse kohta, likviidsuse järelevalvega seotud järelevalvemeetmete kohta, likviidsuse taseme ja kapitalinõuete kohta, mida kohaldatakse konsolideerimisgruppi kuuluva iga krediidiasutuse ja investeerimisühingu suhtes ning konsolideerimisgrupi suhtes.
(2)
Selleks et tagada ühisotsuste tegemise protsessi ühtne kohaldamine, on oluline täpselt määratleda iga etapp. Selge protsess hõlbustaks ka teabe vahetamist, edendaks vastastikust mõistmist, arendaks järelevalveasutuste vahelisi suhteid ja soodustaks tõhusat järelevalvet.
(3)
Selleks et hinnata krediidiasutuste või investeerimisühingute konsolideerimisgrupi riski ja likviidsusriski profiili, peaks konsolideeritud järelevalvet teostaval asutusel olema ülevaade kõigi konsolideerimisgruppi kuuluvate krediidiasutuste või investeerimisühingute, sealhulgas väljaspool liitu tegutsevad krediidiasutused või investeerimisühingud, tegevusest. Seepärast tuleks edendada liidu pädevate asutuste ja kolmandate riikide järelevalveasutuste koostööd, et liidu pädevad asutused saaksid hinnata konsolideerimisgrupile avatud ülemaailmseid riske.
(4)
Esmatähtis on ühisotsuste tegemise protsessi õigeaegne ja realistlik kavandamine. Iga asjaomane pädev asutus peaks õigeaegselt esitama konsolideeritud järelevalvet teostavale asutusele asjakohase teabe. Selleks et individuaalseid hinnanguid esitataks ja tõlgendataks järjepideval ja ühtsel viisil, tuleb kehtestada iga krediidiasutuse ja investeerimisühingu põhise järelevalve ja hindamise protsessi tulemuste ühine vorm.
(5)
Kohaldamise jaoks ühtsete tingimuste tagamiseks tuleks kehtestada ühise riskihindamise ja ühisotsuste tegemise sammud, võttes arvesse, et teatavaid ühise riskihindamise ja ühisotsuste tegemise protsessi ülesandeid võib täita samaaegselt ja teisi ülesandeid järjestikuselt.
(6)
Ühisotsusele jõudmise hõlbustamiseks on oluline, et otsuse tegemise protsessiga seotud pädevad asutused peaksid omavahel arutelusid, eelkõige enne riski hindamise aruannete ja ühisotsuste lõplikku vormistamist.
(7)
Konsolideeritud järelevalvet teostav asutus peaks esitama asjaomastele pädevatele asutustele kogu asjaomase teabe, mida on vaja nende individuaalsete riskihinnangute koostamiseks ning kapitali käsitlevatele ühisotsustele ja likviidsust käsitlevatele ühisotsustele jõudmiseks.
(8)
Konsolideerimisgrupi riski hindamist käsitlev aruanne on peamine dokument, mis võimaldab pädevatel asutustel mõista ja kajastada pangagrupi üldise riskiprofiili hinnangut, et jõuda ühisotsusele omavahendite adekvaatsuse kohta ja omavahendite taseme kohta, mida konsolideerimisgrupp peab hoidma. Konsolideerimisgrupi likviidsusriski hindamist käsitlev aruanne on oluline dokument, mis võimaldab pädevatel asutustel mõista ja kajastada konsolideerimisgrupi üldise likviidsusprofiili hinnangut. Selleks et esitada konsolideerimisgrupi üldine riskihinnang ja likviidsusriski hinnang ühtsel viisil, toetada viljakaid arutelusid pädevate asutuste vahel ja võimaldada usaldusväärset hinnata piiriüleste pangagruppide riske, tuleks kehtestada kõnealuste aruannete ühtsed vormid.
(9)
Tunnistades, et direktiivi 2013/36/EL artiklis 97 sätestatud järelevalvealase läbivaatamise ja hindamise protsessi tulemusi võib eri liikmesriikides kajastada erinevalt, olenevalt kõnealuse artikli rakendamisest siseriiklikes õigusaktides, võttes lisaks arvesse direktiivi 2013/36/EL artikli 107 lõike 2 kohaselt Euroopa järelevalveasutusele (Euroopa Pangandusjärelevalve, EBA) antud suuniseid, tuleks standardvormidega näha ette ühisotsustele jõudmiseks kasutatava järelevalvealase läbivaatamise protsessi järelduste ja tulemuste edastamise ühtne vorming.
(10)
Konsolideerimisgrupi riski hindamise aruande ega konsolideerimisgrupi likviidsusriski hindamise aruande puhul ei tuleks piirduda pädevatelt asutustelt saadud individuaalsete panuste kokkuliitmisega. Mõlemat aruannet tuleks kasutada vahendina, mille abil teostatakse kogu konsolideerimisgrupi riskide ühine hindamine ning analüüsitakse grupisiseste kirjete vastasmõju.
(11)
Ühisotsuste sisu ja ülesehitust käsitleva selge korra kehtestamine peaks tagama, et ühisotsused on täielikult põhjendatud, ning hõlbustama ühisotsuste seiret ja jõustamist.
(12)
Selleks et selgitada ühisotsusele jõudmise järel järgitavat protsessi, tagada otsuse tulemuse käsitlemise läbipaistvus ja hõlbustada vajaduse korral asjakohaste järelmeetmete võtmist, tuleks kehtestada täielikult põhjendatud ühisotsuse edastamist ja selle rakendamise järelevalvet käsitlevad standardid.
(13)
Tuleks ette näha ühisotsuste ajakohastamise kord, et tagada järjepidev ja läbipaistev lähenemisviis, samuti pädevate asutuste nõuetekohane kaasamine ja tulemuste edastamine.
(14)
Direktiivi 2013/36/EL artikli 113 kohane ühisotsuste tegemise protsess hõlmab protsessi, mida järgitakse ühisotsusele mittejõudmise korral. Selleks et tagada protsessi selle aspekti kohaldamise ühtsed tingimused, täielikult põhjendatud otsuste sõnastamine ja vastuvõtva liikmesriigi järelevalveasutuste esitatud seisukohtade ja reservatsioonide käsitlemine, tuleks kehtestada standardid, mis käsitlevad ühisotsuse puudumise korral tehtavate otsuste ajakava ja selliste otsuste üksikasjade edastamist.
(15)
Käesolev määrus põhineb rakenduslike tehniliste standardite eelnõul, mille EBA esitas komisjonile.
(16)
EBA on korraldanud avalikud konsultatsioonid käesoleva määruse aluseks olevate rakenduslike tehniliste standardite eelnõu kohta, analüüsinud potentsiaalseid seonduvaid kulusid ja kasu ning küsinud arvamust pangandussektori sidusrühmade kogult, mis asutati vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1093/2010 (2) artiklile 37,
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:
Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.
[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
