Article 138 General requirements
An institution may nominate one or more ECAIs to be used for the determination of risk weights to be assigned to assets and off-balance sheet items. An institution may revoke its nomination of an ECAI. An institution shall substantiate the revocation if there are concrete indications that the intention underlying the revocation is to reduce the capital adequacy requirements. Credit assessments shall not be used selectively. An institution shall use solicited credit assessments. However it may use unsolicited credit assessments if EBA has confirmed that unsolicited credit assessments of an ECAI do not differ in quality from solicited credit assessments of this ECAI. EBA shall refuse or revoke this confirmation in particular if the ECAI has used an unsolicited credit assessment to put pressure on the rated entity to place an order for a credit assessment or other services. In using credit assessment, institutions shall comply with the following requirements: (a) an institution which decides to use the credit assessments produced by an ECAI for a certain class of items shall use those credit assessments consistently for all exposures belonging to that class; (b) an institution which decides to use the credit assessments produced by an ECAI shall use them in a continuous and consistent way over time; (c) an institution shall only use ECAIs credit assessments that take into account all amounts both in principal and in interest owed to it; (d) where only one credit assessment is available from a nominated ECAI for a rated item, that credit assessment shall be used to determine the risk weight for that item; (e) where two credit assessments are available from nominated ECAIs and the two correspond to different risk weights for a rated item, the higher risk weight shall be assigned; (f) where more than two credit assessments are available from nominated ECAIs for a rated item, the two assessments generating the two lowest risk weights shall be referred to. If the two lowest risk weights are different, the higher risk weight shall be assigned. If the two lowest risk weights are the same, that risk weight shall be assigned.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal aims to amend Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) to maintain the current transitional approach to the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) requirement. The NSFR requirement is part of the Basel III international standards, which the European Union (EU) agreed to implement as part of the wide-ranging reform of the prudential framework for banks in the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The NSFR requirement aims to ensure that banks have stable funding sources to fund their activities and reduce their dependency on short-term wholesale funding. It was designed to mitigate maturity transformation risk, as a globally consistent regulatory requirement, aiming to foster convergence across jurisdictions and eliminate opportunities for cross-border regulatory arbitrage. In particular, the Basel NSFR standard introduces a minimum requirement on the amount of stable funding that banks must issue to finance their activities, based on the liquidity profile of their assets. It mitigates a bank’s liquidity risk by setting a required stable funding (RSF) level based on the bank’s assets, which is then compared to the available stable funding (ASF) that results from their liability instruments. Securities Financing Transactions ( SFT s) as defined u nder Article 4(1 ), point 139 of the CRR encompass different secured transaction types in which assets (collateral) are exchanged for cash: (i) rep urchase (rep os ) and reverse-repurchase (reverse-repos) , (ii) securities lending , (iii) buy-sell-back , and (iv) margin lending. Repos and reverse-repos make up the largest share of SFTs, account ing for 68% of the total, followed by securities lending ( 23% ) , buy-sell-back ( 8% ) , and margin lending ( 1% ) (September 2023 data) 1 . A repo is a collateralised and generally short-term borrowing transaction. A reverse-repo is a collateralised lending transaction, mirroring a repo transaction, where a bank (the lender) temporarily purchases securities or commodities (i.e. collateral) from a counterparty (the borrower) in exchange for cash with a commitment to sell the collateral back in the future at a predetermined price. Unsecured lending transactions are loans that are not secured by any collateral. They are based on the borrower’s creditworthiness and promise to repay. They were mainly found on the interbank markets before the GFC. Since the GFC and the closure of the unsecured interbank markets, SFTs have play ed a crucial role in the circulation of short-term funding between banks and market players through collateralised transactions. SFT market activity also links the short-term money market to the longer-term capital market. The bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. SFT s are characterised as a high-volume, low-margin business activity for large banks, and th is wholesale market activity is prone to international competition as highlighted by the very cross-border nature of these transactions . Only 41% of the EU SFT amount s are between EU counterparties , meanwhile 59% of the EU SFT amount s involve one non-EU counterparty 2 . For monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months, the Basel NSFR standard requires a conservative non-zero RSF requirement on banks. The objective is to discourage excessive short-term exposures between banks, which may give rise to contagion during times of financial distress. The NSFR standard was implemented in EU law on 20 May 2019 through an amendment of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2). The related requirements entered into application at the end of June 2021. In its proposal amending the CRR, published on 23 November 2016 3 , the Commission suggested the permanent use of RSF levels low e r than those included in the Basel accord . The Commission concluded at the time that ‘ it seems reasonable to bring limited changes to the treatment of both short-term transactions with financial institutions, and of HQLA Level 1 [ in order ] not to hinder the good functioning of EU financial and repo markets ’ . The arguments and analysis that led to this approach and the impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal are still valid 4 . The co-legislators , however, allowed for a transitional 0% RSF requirement – instead of the 10% RSF specified in the Basel III standards and the lower one (5%) proposed by the Commission – for monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months , when collateralised with Level 1 High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) 5 , such as sovereign debt. This provision is set to expire in June 2025, when the non-zero RSF requirement set out in the Basel standard would start to apply. The transitional provision aimed to give banks sufficient time to adapt to the more conservative requirement imposed by the Basel standards and to mitigate any consequential effect on the EU capital market, and in particular on the sovereign debt market. Similar transitional provisions were also agreed for short-term monies due from SFTs collateralised by assets other than Level 1 HQLA and for short-term unsecured transactions with financial customers. These exposures are relatively less material compared to monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA. They are also characterised by higher margins. The considerations of the co-legislators when granting a transitional treatment for these transactions were their inherent funding characteristics and the impact of the level of RSF factors for these transactions on the market liquidity, especially of assets received as collateral in SFT transactions. The transitional prudential charge defined by co-legislators maintains a difference in the stable funding requirement that is consistent with the Basel standard, between monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA, such as sovereign bonds, and monies due from SFTs collateralised by other assets. It contributes however not to increase the pressure on very high-quality collateral, beyond addressing the sovereign-bank nexus. It also supports the market liquidity and the diversity of collateral assets eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks, under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). As regards unsecured funding transactions with a residual maturity below six months, with financial customers, the transitional treatment aims to apply a proportionate funding requirement to these transactions, in line with their funding risk profile, and to support the revive of the unsecured funding market that vanished after the 2008 GFC. Unsecured funding transactions should indeed be considered as a necessary complement to secured funding transactions such as SFTs, to support overall market liquidity and monetary policy transmission, in particular during periods of monetary policy tightening. The United States , the United Kingdom , Japan and Switzerland have adopted a similar treatment as the EU’s transitional treatment, but these countries have made it a permanent one . The US agencies argue that ‘ the 0% RSF factor assignment was made based on the determination that Level 1 HQLA pose minimal liquidity risk and contribute importantly to the good functioning of short-term funding markets, i.e. that a non-zero RSF factor on Level 1 HQLA could discourage intermediation in US Treasury and repo markets ’ 6 . The end of the current transitional treatment and the resulting tightening of the NSFR requirement in the EU raises some concerns. It could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and reduce the liquidity in these markets because these high-volume low-margin transactions would become more costly. Further increasing the costs of these transactions when operated by EU counterparties, while 59% of EU transactions already involve one non-EU counterparty, may develop the attractiveness of non-EU counterparties or non-EU capital markets. This would contradict the development and sustainability of capital markets and liquidity for collateral assets, such as sovereign bonds, in the EU. If the EU was to increase the RSF factors for these transactions, in a unilateral way, it would distort the international level playing field, putting EU banks at a disadvantage compared to non-EU peers operating on this very international and competitive activity. Somehow, reinforcing the unlevel playing field would be at odd with one of the initial objectives of the Basel standards to support the implementation of globally consistent regulatory requirements and to reduce opportunities for cross border regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, maintaining the current treatment, in line with the approach retained by other jurisdictions, may support the development of a liquid and attractive sovereign debt market and a deep SFT market for EU collateral instruments. The current requirements have proven to be prudentially sound since their entry into application in mid-2021 and do not seem to have raised any financial stability concerns, in particular during the recent stress episodes (Russian aggression, UK Gilt crisis, March 2023 banking turmoil). Since mid-2021, EU banks have built up strong NSFR buffers, beyond minimum requirements, subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. Any effect of maintaining the transitional treatment will continue to be monitored and subject to adequate supervisory scrutiny, including on banks’ funding practices and liquidity risk profile, through ongoing supervision and periodic reports. Under Article 510(7) of the CRR2, the Commission is required to assess the relevance of the transitional NSFR treatment of monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions, with financial customers, with a residual maturity below six months, by the end of June 2024, based on a report from the European Banking Authority (EBA). As explained in Section 3, the EBA’s report only analysed the impact on banks’ NSFR levels, that appears negligible. However, a broader analysis points to possible undesirable effects of moving towards the RSF prescribed by Basel accord. The EU’s SFT market plays a crucial role in financing EU government debt as the bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. In addition, maintaining the transitional treatment supports the liquidity and diversity of assets that are also eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks under the LCR. It may indeed not be appropriate to disconnect the two dimensions of the liquidity requirements. It is also important to maintain the existing steps between the RSF factors for sovereign bonds collateral and other collateral used in SFTs as doing otherwise would affect the preference for one or the other, thereby risking reinforcing the pressure on (scarce) high quality collateral, beyond contributing to the sovereign-bank nexus. The unsecured funding market for banks has vanished after the 2008 GFC and has never been revived, at least not to a significant level. A non-zero RSF factor already applies to short-term unsecured transactions under the NSFR. An increase in this factor will not materially strengthen the prudential profile of banks, i.e. the impact on the NSFR would be negligible, while it may disincentivise the use of unsecured funding transactions that may prove helpful in a period of monetary policy tightening. An increase in the RSF level applicable to monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and other collateral and reduce liquidity in the EU capital markets overall. An increase in the RSF for these transactions will not lead to a material change in the average level of the NSFR ratio of EU banks that already appears above the minimum requirements and is already subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. It will therefore not change fundamentally the prudential profile of EU banks. This, in turn, could increase funding costs for Member States and EU market players in a period of normalised monetary policy when central banks are expected to reduce their market presence and private market players are expected to take over. To avoid possible unintended consequences on capital markets liquidity and considering the safeguards provided by the current framework for banks, the Commission proposes to maintain the transitional treatment for monies due from SFT and for unsecured transactions with a residual maturity of less than six months, with financial customers. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of capital market developments by central banks and to the ongoing supervision by competent authorities, the Commission also proposes to mandate the EBA to report the impact of this treatment every 5 years. This would allow the Commission to act accordingly and propose amendments if evidence emerges from these periodic monitoring reports.
Revised version (Article 138 General requirements):
An institution may nominate one or more ECAIs to be used for the determination of risk weights to be assigned to assets and off-balance sheet items. An institution may revoke its nomination of an ECAI. An institution shall substantiate the revocation if there are concrete indications that the intention underlying the revocation is to reduce the capital adequacy requirements. Credit assessments shall not be used selectively. An institution shall use solicited credit assessments. However it may use unsolicited credit assessments if EBA has confirmed that unsolicited credit assessments of an ECAI do not differ in quality from solicited credit assessments of this ECAI. EBA shall refuse or revoke this confirmation in particular if the ECAI has used an unsolicited credit assessment to put pressure on the rated entity to place an order for a credit assessment or other services. In using credit assessment, institutions shall comply with the following requirements: (a) an institution which decides to use the credit assessments produced by an ECAI for a certain class of items shall use those credit assessments consistently for all exposures belonging to that class; (b) an institution which decides to use the credit assessments produced by an ECAI shall use them in a continuous and consistent way over time; (c) an institution shall only use ECAIs credit assessments that take into account all amounts both in principal and in interest owed to it; (d) where only one credit assessment is available from a nominated ECAI for a rated item, that credit assessment shall be used to determine the risk weight for that item; (e) where two credit assessments are available from nominated ECAIs and the two correspond to different risk weights for a rated item, the higher risk weight shall be assigned; (f) where more than two credit assessments are available from nominated ECAIs for a rated item, the two assessments generating the two lowest risk weights shall be referred to. If the two lowest risk weights are different, the higher risk weight shall be assigned. If the two lowest risk weights are the same, that risk weight shall be assigned; (g) for exposures to institutions, an institution shall not use an ECAI credit assessment that incorporates assumptions of implicit government support, unless the respective ECAI credit assessment refers to an institution owned by or set up and sponsored by central governments, regional governments or local authorities. For the purposes of the first paragraph, point (g), in the case of institutions, other than institutions owned by or set up and sponsored by central governments, regional governments or local authorities, for which only ECAI credit assessments exist which incorporate assumptions of implicit government support, exposures to such institutions shall be treated as exposures to unrated institutions in accordance with Article 121. ‘Implicit government support’ means that the central government, regional government or local authority would act to prevent creditors of the institution from incurring losses in the event of the institution’s default or distress.
Article 139 Issuer and issue credit assessment
1. Where a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing programme or facility to which the item constituting the exposure belongs, this credit assessment shall be used to determine the risk weight to be assigned to that item. 2. Where no directly applicable credit assessment exists for a certain item, but a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing programme or facility to which the item constituting the exposure does not belong or a general credit assessment exists for the issuer, then that credit assessment shall be used in either of the following cases: (a) it produces a higher risk weight than would otherwise be the case and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or junior in all respects to the specific issuing program or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant; (b) it produces a lower risk weight and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or senior in all respects to the specific issuing programme or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant. In all other cases, the exposure shall be treated as unrated. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not to prevent the application of Article 129. 4. Credit assessments for issuers within a corporate group cannot be used as credit assessment of another issuer within the same corporate group.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in pa rticular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the prudential regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. Amongst various subsequent changes, Regulation (EU) 2017/2395 3 has inserted in the CRR transitional arrangements for mitigating the impact on own funds from the introduction of the new accounting standard, the International Financial Reporting Standard – Financial Instruments (IFRS) 9. Regulation (EU) 2019/630 4 has introduced in the CRR a requirement for minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (the so-called prudential backstop). Furthermore, Reg ulation (EU) 2019/876 5 (CRR II) has added to the CRR some of the final elements of the international reforms (the finalised Basel III framework), which entail amongst others, a new definition of the leverage ratio and a leverage ratio buffer, which will pr event institutions from excessively increasing leverage. The latter Regulation has also introduced in the CRR more favourable prudential treatments of certain software assets, of certain pension- and salary-backed loans, as well as of loans to small and me dium sized enterprises (SMEs) and infrastructure projects. The severe economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional containment measures are having a far-reaching impact on the economy. Businesses are facing disruption in supply chains, temporary closures and reduced demand, while households are confronted with unemployment and a fall in income. Public authorities at Union and Member State levels have taken decisive actions to support households and solvent undertakings to withstand this severe but temporary slowdown in economic activity and the liquidity shortages that it will cause. Due to the reforms undertaken in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, credit institutions are today well capitalised and much more resilient than they were in 2008. This enables them to play a key role in managing the economic shock that stems from the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, uncertainty related to the pace of recovery of economic activity will inevitably have an impact on the banking sector. In reaction to the new circumstances, competent authorities across the Union have provided temporary capital and operational relief to ensure favourable conditions for credit institutions to continue lending amid COVID-19. It is therefore important that capital is deployed where it is most needed and that the prudential framework interacts smoothly with the various measures that address the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRR offers ample leeway for banks to support public and private initiatives to promote contin ued lending in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, while ensuring a prudent approach. The flexibility embedded in the CRR is described in the Commission Interpretative Communication of 28 April 2020 6 on the application of the accounting and prudential frameworks to facilitate bank lending in the Union amid COVID-19. Besides making full use of the flexibility allowed for in the existing framework, some limited changes to specific aspects of the CRR ar e necessary in order to maximise the capacity of credit institutions to lend and to absorb losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, while still ensuring their continued resilience. Moreover, at international level, the BCBS has agreed a one-year delay in t he deadline for implementing the final elements of the Basel III framework, of which some elements had been already incorporated in the CRR 7 , as well as a greater flexibility to the phase-in of the impact of the IFRS 9 on capital . These changes need to be reflected in the existing rules. First, it is necessary to adjust the transitional arrangements that allow credit institutions to alleviate the impact from expected credit-loss (ECL) provisioning under IFRS 9 on their own funds. This adjustment would allow credit institutions to better mitigate the impact of any potential increase in ECL provisioning caused by the deterioration in the credit quality of credit institutions’ exposures due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to account for the impact of COVID-19 related guarantees, the rules on the minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (NPEs) need to be adjusted to extend temporarily the treatment that is currently applicable to NPEs guaranteed or insured by export credit agencies to NPEs that would arise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and that are covered by the various guarantee schemes that were put in place by Member States. This would recognise the similar characteristics shared by export credit agencies guarantees and COVID-19 related guarantees. Third, the offsetting mechanism associated with the competent authority discretion to allow credit institutions to temporarily exclude exposures in the form of central bank reserves from the calculation of the leverage ratio needs to be modified. This would ensure that liquidity measures provided by central banks in a crisis context would be effectively channelled by credit institutions to the economy. Fourth, it is necessary to defer, in line with the decision of the BCBS, the application date of the new leverage ratio buffer requirement. This would free up credit institutions’ operational capacity and allow them to focus on the more immediate challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifth, the application dates of some of the capital benefits envisaged in the CRR but not yet applicable need to be anticipated, namely the provisions on the treatment of certain software assets, the provisions on certain loans backed by pensions or salaries, the revised supporting factor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and the new supporting factor for infrastructure finance. Advancing the date of application of the two supporting factors, the preferential treatment of certain software assets, and the preferential treatment of certain loans backed by pensions or salaries would free up own funds of institutions, allowing them to boost much needed lending during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. These proposed changes will not fundamentally alter the prudential regulatory framework. They form part of the response of the Commission to address the emergency situation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. These adjustments to the prudential framework would facilitate collective efforts aimed at mitigating the impact of the pandemic and thus moving towards a fast recovery.
Revised version (Article 139 Issuer and issue credit assessment):
1. Where a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing programme or facility to which the item constituting the exposure belongs, this credit assessment shall be used to determine the risk weight to be assigned to that item. 2. Where no directly applicable credit assessment exists for a certain item, but a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing programme or facility to which the item constituting the exposure does not belong or a general credit assessment exists for the issuer, then that credit assessment shall be used in either of the following cases: (a) it produces a higher risk weight than would otherwise be the case and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or junior in all respects to the specific issuing program or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant; (b) it produces a lower risk weight and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or senior in all respects to the specific issuing programme or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant. Where no directly applicable credit assessment exists for a certain item, but a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing programme or facility to which the item constituting the exposure does not belong or a general credit assessment exists for the issuer, then that credit assessment shall be used in either of the following cases: (a) it produces a higher risk weight than would otherwise be the case and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or junior in all respects to the specific issuing program or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant; (b) it produces a lower risk weight and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or senior in all respects to the specific issuing programme or facility or to senior unsecured exposures of that issuer, as relevant. In all other cases, the exposure shall be treated as unrated. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not to prevent the application of Article 129. 4. Credit assessments for issuers within a corporate group cannot be used as credit assessment of another issuer within the same corporate group.
Article 140 Long-term and short-term credit assessments
1. Short-term credit assessments may only be used for short-term asset and off-balance sheet items constituting exposures to institutions and corporates. 2. Any short-term credit assessment shall only apply to the item the short-term credit assessment refers to, and it shall not be used to derive risk weights for any other item, except in the following cases: (a) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 150 % risk weight, then all unrated unsecured exposures on that obligor whether short-term or long-term shall also be assigned a 150 % risk weight; (b) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 50 % risk-weight, no unrated short-term exposure shall be assigned a risk weight lower than 100 %.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in pa rticular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the prudential regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. Amongst various subsequent changes, Regulation (EU) 2017/2395 3 has inserted in the CRR transitional arrangements for mitigating the impact on own funds from the introduction of the new accounting standard, the International Financial Reporting Standard – Financial Instruments (IFRS) 9. Regulation (EU) 2019/630 4 has introduced in the CRR a requirement for minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (the so-called prudential backstop). Furthermore, Reg ulation (EU) 2019/876 5 (CRR II) has added to the CRR some of the final elements of the international reforms (the finalised Basel III framework), which entail amongst others, a new definition of the leverage ratio and a leverage ratio buffer, which will pr event institutions from excessively increasing leverage. The latter Regulation has also introduced in the CRR more favourable prudential treatments of certain software assets, of certain pension- and salary-backed loans, as well as of loans to small and me dium sized enterprises (SMEs) and infrastructure projects. The severe economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional containment measures are having a far-reaching impact on the economy. Businesses are facing disruption in supply chains, temporary closures and reduced demand, while households are confronted with unemployment and a fall in income. Public authorities at Union and Member State levels have taken decisive actions to support households and solvent undertakings to withstand this severe but temporary slowdown in economic activity and the liquidity shortages that it will cause. Due to the reforms undertaken in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, credit institutions are today well capitalised and much more resilient than they were in 2008. This enables them to play a key role in managing the economic shock that stems from the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, uncertainty related to the pace of recovery of economic activity will inevitably have an impact on the banking sector. In reaction to the new circumstances, competent authorities across the Union have provided temporary capital and operational relief to ensure favourable conditions for credit institutions to continue lending amid COVID-19. It is therefore important that capital is deployed where it is most needed and that the prudential framework interacts smoothly with the various measures that address the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRR offers ample leeway for banks to support public and private initiatives to promote contin ued lending in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, while ensuring a prudent approach. The flexibility embedded in the CRR is described in the Commission Interpretative Communication of 28 April 2020 6 on the application of the accounting and prudential frameworks to facilitate bank lending in the Union amid COVID-19. Besides making full use of the flexibility allowed for in the existing framework, some limited changes to specific aspects of the CRR ar e necessary in order to maximise the capacity of credit institutions to lend and to absorb losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, while still ensuring their continued resilience. Moreover, at international level, the BCBS has agreed a one-year delay in t he deadline for implementing the final elements of the Basel III framework, of which some elements had been already incorporated in the CRR 7 , as well as a greater flexibility to the phase-in of the impact of the IFRS 9 on capital . These changes need to be reflected in the existing rules. First, it is necessary to adjust the transitional arrangements that allow credit institutions to alleviate the impact from expected credit-loss (ECL) provisioning under IFRS 9 on their own funds. This adjustment would allow credit institutions to better mitigate the impact of any potential increase in ECL provisioning caused by the deterioration in the credit quality of credit institutions’ exposures due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to account for the impact of COVID-19 related guarantees, the rules on the minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (NPEs) need to be adjusted to extend temporarily the treatment that is currently applicable to NPEs guaranteed or insured by export credit agencies to NPEs that would arise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and that are covered by the various guarantee schemes that were put in place by Member States. This would recognise the similar characteristics shared by export credit agencies guarantees and COVID-19 related guarantees. Third, the offsetting mechanism associated with the competent authority discretion to allow credit institutions to temporarily exclude exposures in the form of central bank reserves from the calculation of the leverage ratio needs to be modified. This would ensure that liquidity measures provided by central banks in a crisis context would be effectively channelled by credit institutions to the economy. Fourth, it is necessary to defer, in line with the decision of the BCBS, the application date of the new leverage ratio buffer requirement. This would free up credit institutions’ operational capacity and allow them to focus on the more immediate challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifth, the application dates of some of the capital benefits envisaged in the CRR but not yet applicable need to be anticipated, namely the provisions on the treatment of certain software assets, the provisions on certain loans backed by pensions or salaries, the revised supporting factor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and the new supporting factor for infrastructure finance. Advancing the date of application of the two supporting factors, the preferential treatment of certain software assets, and the preferential treatment of certain loans backed by pensions or salaries would free up own funds of institutions, allowing them to boost much needed lending during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. These proposed changes will not fundamentally alter the prudential regulatory framework. They form part of the response of the Commission to address the emergency situation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. These adjustments to the prudential framework would facilitate collective efforts aimed at mitigating the impact of the pandemic and thus moving towards a fast recovery.
Revised version (Article 140 Long-term and short-term credit assessments):
1. Short-term credit assessments may only be used for short-term asset and off-balance sheet items constituting exposures to institutions and corporates. 2. Any short-term credit assessment shall only apply to the item the short-term credit assessment refers to, and it shall not be used to derive risk weights for any other item, except in the following cases: (a) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 150 % risk weight, then all unrated unsecured exposures on that obligor whether short-term or long-term shall also be assigned a 150 % risk weight; (b) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 50 % risk-weight, no unrated short-term exposure shall be assigned a risk weight lower than 100 %. Any short-term credit assessment shall only apply to the item the short-term credit assessment refers to, and it shall not be used to derive risk weights for any other item, except in the following cases: (a) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 150 % risk weight, then all unrated unsecured exposures on that obligor whether short-term or long-term shall also be assigned a 150 % risk weight; (b) if a short-term rated facility is assigned a 50 % risk-weight, no unrated short-term exposure shall be assigned a risk weight lower than 100 %.
Article 141 Domestic and foreign currency items
A credit assessment that refers to an item denominated in the obligor's domestic currency cannot be used to derive a risk weight for another exposure on that same obligor that is denominated in a foreign currency. When an exposure arises through an institution's participation in a loan that has been extended by a multilateral development bank whose preferred creditor status is recognised in the market, the credit assessment on the obligors' domestic currency item may be used for risk weighting purposes.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal aims to amend Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) to maintain the current transitional approach to the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) requirement. The NSFR requirement is part of the Basel III international standards, which the European Union (EU) agreed to implement as part of the wide-ranging reform of the prudential framework for banks in the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The NSFR requirement aims to ensure that banks have stable funding sources to fund their activities and reduce their dependency on short-term wholesale funding. It was designed to mitigate maturity transformation risk, as a globally consistent regulatory requirement, aiming to foster convergence across jurisdictions and eliminate opportunities for cross-border regulatory arbitrage. In particular, the Basel NSFR standard introduces a minimum requirement on the amount of stable funding that banks must issue to finance their activities, based on the liquidity profile of their assets. It mitigates a bank’s liquidity risk by setting a required stable funding (RSF) level based on the bank’s assets, which is then compared to the available stable funding (ASF) that results from their liability instruments. Securities Financing Transactions ( SFT s) as defined u nder Article 4(1 ), point 139 of the CRR encompass different secured transaction types in which assets (collateral) are exchanged for cash: (i) rep urchase (rep os ) and reverse-repurchase (reverse-repos) , (ii) securities lending , (iii) buy-sell-back , and (iv) margin lending. Repos and reverse-repos make up the largest share of SFTs, account ing for 68% of the total, followed by securities lending ( 23% ) , buy-sell-back ( 8% ) , and margin lending ( 1% ) (September 2023 data) 1 . A repo is a collateralised and generally short-term borrowing transaction. A reverse-repo is a collateralised lending transaction, mirroring a repo transaction, where a bank (the lender) temporarily purchases securities or commodities (i.e. collateral) from a counterparty (the borrower) in exchange for cash with a commitment to sell the collateral back in the future at a predetermined price. Unsecured lending transactions are loans that are not secured by any collateral. They are based on the borrower’s creditworthiness and promise to repay. They were mainly found on the interbank markets before the GFC. Since the GFC and the closure of the unsecured interbank markets, SFTs have play ed a crucial role in the circulation of short-term funding between banks and market players through collateralised transactions. SFT market activity also links the short-term money market to the longer-term capital market. The bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. SFT s are characterised as a high-volume, low-margin business activity for large banks, and th is wholesale market activity is prone to international competition as highlighted by the very cross-border nature of these transactions . Only 41% of the EU SFT amount s are between EU counterparties , meanwhile 59% of the EU SFT amount s involve one non-EU counterparty 2 . For monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months, the Basel NSFR standard requires a conservative non-zero RSF requirement on banks. The objective is to discourage excessive short-term exposures between banks, which may give rise to contagion during times of financial distress. The NSFR standard was implemented in EU law on 20 May 2019 through an amendment of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2). The related requirements entered into application at the end of June 2021. In its proposal amending the CRR, published on 23 November 2016 3 , the Commission suggested the permanent use of RSF levels low e r than those included in the Basel accord . The Commission concluded at the time that ‘ it seems reasonable to bring limited changes to the treatment of both short-term transactions with financial institutions, and of HQLA Level 1 [ in order ] not to hinder the good functioning of EU financial and repo markets ’ . The arguments and analysis that led to this approach and the impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal are still valid 4 . The co-legislators , however, allowed for a transitional 0% RSF requirement – instead of the 10% RSF specified in the Basel III standards and the lower one (5%) proposed by the Commission – for monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months , when collateralised with Level 1 High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) 5 , such as sovereign debt. This provision is set to expire in June 2025, when the non-zero RSF requirement set out in the Basel standard would start to apply. The transitional provision aimed to give banks sufficient time to adapt to the more conservative requirement imposed by the Basel standards and to mitigate any consequential effect on the EU capital market, and in particular on the sovereign debt market. Similar transitional provisions were also agreed for short-term monies due from SFTs collateralised by assets other than Level 1 HQLA and for short-term unsecured transactions with financial customers. These exposures are relatively less material compared to monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA. They are also characterised by higher margins. The considerations of the co-legislators when granting a transitional treatment for these transactions were their inherent funding characteristics and the impact of the level of RSF factors for these transactions on the market liquidity, especially of assets received as collateral in SFT transactions. The transitional prudential charge defined by co-legislators maintains a difference in the stable funding requirement that is consistent with the Basel standard, between monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA, such as sovereign bonds, and monies due from SFTs collateralised by other assets. It contributes however not to increase the pressure on very high-quality collateral, beyond addressing the sovereign-bank nexus. It also supports the market liquidity and the diversity of collateral assets eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks, under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). As regards unsecured funding transactions with a residual maturity below six months, with financial customers, the transitional treatment aims to apply a proportionate funding requirement to these transactions, in line with their funding risk profile, and to support the revive of the unsecured funding market that vanished after the 2008 GFC. Unsecured funding transactions should indeed be considered as a necessary complement to secured funding transactions such as SFTs, to support overall market liquidity and monetary policy transmission, in particular during periods of monetary policy tightening. The United States , the United Kingdom , Japan and Switzerland have adopted a similar treatment as the EU’s transitional treatment, but these countries have made it a permanent one . The US agencies argue that ‘ the 0% RSF factor assignment was made based on the determination that Level 1 HQLA pose minimal liquidity risk and contribute importantly to the good functioning of short-term funding markets, i.e. that a non-zero RSF factor on Level 1 HQLA could discourage intermediation in US Treasury and repo markets ’ 6 . The end of the current transitional treatment and the resulting tightening of the NSFR requirement in the EU raises some concerns. It could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and reduce the liquidity in these markets because these high-volume low-margin transactions would become more costly. Further increasing the costs of these transactions when operated by EU counterparties, while 59% of EU transactions already involve one non-EU counterparty, may develop the attractiveness of non-EU counterparties or non-EU capital markets. This would contradict the development and sustainability of capital markets and liquidity for collateral assets, such as sovereign bonds, in the EU. If the EU was to increase the RSF factors for these transactions, in a unilateral way, it would distort the international level playing field, putting EU banks at a disadvantage compared to non-EU peers operating on this very international and competitive activity. Somehow, reinforcing the unlevel playing field would be at odd with one of the initial objectives of the Basel standards to support the implementation of globally consistent regulatory requirements and to reduce opportunities for cross border regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, maintaining the current treatment, in line with the approach retained by other jurisdictions, may support the development of a liquid and attractive sovereign debt market and a deep SFT market for EU collateral instruments. The current requirements have proven to be prudentially sound since their entry into application in mid-2021 and do not seem to have raised any financial stability concerns, in particular during the recent stress episodes (Russian aggression, UK Gilt crisis, March 2023 banking turmoil). Since mid-2021, EU banks have built up strong NSFR buffers, beyond minimum requirements, subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. Any effect of maintaining the transitional treatment will continue to be monitored and subject to adequate supervisory scrutiny, including on banks’ funding practices and liquidity risk profile, through ongoing supervision and periodic reports. Under Article 510(7) of the CRR2, the Commission is required to assess the relevance of the transitional NSFR treatment of monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions, with financial customers, with a residual maturity below six months, by the end of June 2024, based on a report from the European Banking Authority (EBA). As explained in Section 3, the EBA’s report only analysed the impact on banks’ NSFR levels, that appears negligible. However, a broader analysis points to possible undesirable effects of moving towards the RSF prescribed by Basel accord. The EU’s SFT market plays a crucial role in financing EU government debt as the bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. In addition, maintaining the transitional treatment supports the liquidity and diversity of assets that are also eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks under the LCR. It may indeed not be appropriate to disconnect the two dimensions of the liquidity requirements. It is also important to maintain the existing steps between the RSF factors for sovereign bonds collateral and other collateral used in SFTs as doing otherwise would affect the preference for one or the other, thereby risking reinforcing the pressure on (scarce) high quality collateral, beyond contributing to the sovereign-bank nexus. The unsecured funding market for banks has vanished after the 2008 GFC and has never been revived, at least not to a significant level. A non-zero RSF factor already applies to short-term unsecured transactions under the NSFR. An increase in this factor will not materially strengthen the prudential profile of banks, i.e. the impact on the NSFR would be negligible, while it may disincentivise the use of unsecured funding transactions that may prove helpful in a period of monetary policy tightening. An increase in the RSF level applicable to monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and other collateral and reduce liquidity in the EU capital markets overall. An increase in the RSF for these transactions will not lead to a material change in the average level of the NSFR ratio of EU banks that already appears above the minimum requirements and is already subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. It will therefore not change fundamentally the prudential profile of EU banks. This, in turn, could increase funding costs for Member States and EU market players in a period of normalised monetary policy when central banks are expected to reduce their market presence and private market players are expected to take over. To avoid possible unintended consequences on capital markets liquidity and considering the safeguards provided by the current framework for banks, the Commission proposes to maintain the transitional treatment for monies due from SFT and for unsecured transactions with a residual maturity of less than six months, with financial customers. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of capital market developments by central banks and to the ongoing supervision by competent authorities, the Commission also proposes to mandate the EBA to report the impact of this treatment every 5 years. This would allow the Commission to act accordingly and propose amendments if evidence emerges from these periodic monitoring reports.
Revised version (Article 141 Domestic and foreign currency items):
1. A credit assessment that refers to an item denominated in the obligor’s domestic currency shall not be used to derive a risk weight for an exposure on that same obligor that is denominated in a foreign currency. 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where an exposure arises through an institution’s participation in a loan that has been extended by, or has been guaranteed against convertibility and transfer risk by, a multilateral development bank listed in Article 117(2) the preferred creditor status of which is recognised in the market, the credit assessment on the obligor’s domestic currency item may be used to derive a risk weight for an exposure on that same obligor that is denominated in a foreign currency. For the purposes of the first subparagraph, where the exposure denominated in a foreign currency is guaranteed against convertibility and transfer risk, the credit assessment on the obligor’s domestic currency item may only be used for risk weighting purposes on the guaranteed part of that exposure. The part of that exposure that is not guaranteed shall be risk weighted based on a credit assessment on the obligor that refers to an item denominated in that foreign currency.
Article 142 Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘rating system’ means all of the methods, processes, controls, data collection and IT systems that support the assessment of credit risk, the assignment of exposures to rating grades or pools, and the quantification of default and loss estimates that have been developed for a certain type of exposures; (2) ‘type of exposures’ means a group of homogeneously managed exposures which are formed by a certain type of facilities and which may be limited to a single entity or a single sub-set of entities within a group provided that the same type of exposures is managed differently in other entities of the group; (3) ‘business unit’ means any separate organisational or legal entities, business lines, geographical locations; (4) ‘large financial sector entity’ means any financial sector entity which meets the following conditions: (a) its total assets, calculated on an individual or consolidated basis, are greater than or equal to a EUR 70 billion threshold, using the most recent audited financial statement or consolidated financial statement in order to determine asset size; and (b) it is, or one of its subsidiaries is, subject to prudential regulation in the Union or to the laws of a third country which applies prudential supervisory and regulatory requirements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union; (4) ‘large financial sector entity’ means any financial sector entity which meets the following conditions: (a) its total assets, calculated on an individual or consolidated basis, are greater than or equal to a EUR 70 billion threshold, using the most recent audited financial statement or consolidated financial statement in order to determine asset size; and (b) it is, or one of its subsidiaries is, subject to prudential regulation in the Union or to the laws of a third country which applies prudential supervisory and regulatory requirements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union; (5) ‘unregulated financial sector entity’ means an entity that is not a regulated financial sector entity but that performs, as its main business, one or more of the activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2013/36/EU or in Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC; (6) ‘obligor grade’ means a risk category within the obligor rating scale of a rating system, to which obligors are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which estimates of probability of default (PD) are derived; (7) ‘facility grade’ means a risk category within a rating system's facility scale, to which exposures are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which own estimates of LGD are derived; (8) ‘servicer’ means an entity that manages a pool of purchased receivables or the underlying credit exposures on a day-to-day basis. 2. For the purposes of point (4)(b) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission may adopt, by way of implementing acts, and subject to the examination procedure referred to in Article 464(2), a decision as to whether a third country applies supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union. In the absence of such a decision, until 1 January 2015, institutions may continue to apply the treatment set out in this paragraph to a third country where the relevant competent authorities had approved the third country as eligible for this treatment before 1 January 2014.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The term 'commodity dealer' covers a wide spectrum of actors in energy and commodity markets: some trade exclusively in commodity derivative contracts and resemble investment firms in terms of functions and risks, whereas others trade commodity derivatives purely as an ancillary activity to commodities production. The requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the 'Capital Requirements Regulation' or 'CRR') and in Directive 2013/36/EU (the 'Capital Requirements Directive' or 'CRD') apply to both credit institutions and investment firms. The prudential regime applicable to investment firms is derived from that imposed on credit institutions, adapted as a function of the investment services that they provide. Articles 493(1) and 498(1) of the CRR exempt commodity dealers ("investment firms whose main business consists exclusively of the provision of investment services or activities in relation to the financial instruments set out in points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and to whom Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field did not apply on 31 December 2006") from large exposures requirements and from own funds requirements respectively. Both exemptions expire on 31 December 2017. This 'sunset clause' was originally included in the CRR in order to allow time for regulators to determine a prudential regulation adapted to the risk profile of commodity dealers. 1 To this end, Articles 493(2) and 498(2) of the CRR mandate the Commission to prepare reports by the end of 2015. On the basis of those reports, the Commission may decide to submit proposals to amend the CRR. The Commission is also required to submit, within the same deadline, a report on an appropriate regime for the prudential supervision of investment firms in general. Here again, the report may be followed by a Commission proposal. Since the abovementioned reports are related, the Commission decided to undertake a single review (henceforth 'investment firms review') and prepare a single report on the above topics. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure the development of a coherent prudential framework for all types of investment firms. The work on the investment firms review is already underway: the Commission asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to provide technical advice on the matter. The advice is expected by the end of September 2015. The Commission will then use the advice to prepare its own report. Should the Commission decide to change the existing prudential framework for investment firms, the report will detail the next steps of the investment firms review and the broad outline of the changes the Commission is contemplating. The investment firms review is a complex project which will not be completed by the end of this year. It is therefore highly improbable that any legislation that may result from this review can be prepared, adopted and applied before the current exemptions expire (i.e. before the end of 2017). This has implications for commodity dealers: if no specific prudential framework that may result from the investment firm review would be in place by then, they would be subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements starting from 1 January 2018. There are two problems related to this scenario. First, commodity dealers would become subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements without a conscious (and informed) decision that such treatment is indeed the most appropriate one for them. Second, assuming that the investment firm review would result in a tailor-made prudential framework for commodity dealers, they would be deprived of a stable regulatory framework. They would move from the current treatment where they are exempted from large exposures and own funds requirements, to a temporary treatment comprising the full CRR/CRD requirements, and eventually to the aforementioned tailor-made framework within a very short period of time (one to two years). This is not a desirable outcome. To prevent that this situation arises it is therefore opportune to extend the existing exemptions laid down in the CRR. The extension should take into account the amount of time that will be necessary to conclude the investment firms review and to prepare, adopt and apply any legislation that may result from that review.
Revised version (Article 142 Definitions):
1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘rating system’ means all of the methods, processes, controls, data collection and IT systems that support the assessment of credit risk, the assignment of exposures to rating grades or pools, and the quantification of default and loss estimates that have been developed for a certain type of exposures; (2) ‘type of exposures’ means a group of homogeneously managed exposures which are formed by a certain type of facilities and which may be limited to a single entity or a single sub-set of entities within a group provided that the same type of exposures is managed differently in other entities of the group; (3) ‘business unit’ means any separate organisational or legal entities, business lines, geographical locations; (4) ‘large financial sector entity’ means any financial sector entity which meets the following conditions: (a) its total assets, calculated on an individual or consolidated basis, are greater than or equal to a EUR 70 billion threshold, using the most recent audited financial statement or consolidated financial statement in order to determine asset size; and (b) it is, or one of its subsidiaries is, subject to prudential regulation in the Union or to the laws of a third country which applies prudential supervisory and regulatory requirements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union; (5) ‘unregulated financial sector entity’ means an entity that is not a regulated financial sector entity but that performs, as its main business, one or more of the activities listed in Annex I to Directive 2013/36/EU or in Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC; (6) ‘obligor grade’ means a risk category within the obligor rating scale of a rating system, to which obligors are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which estimates of probability of default (PD) are derived; (7) ‘facility grade’ means a risk category within a rating system's facility scale, to which exposures are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which own estimates of LGD are derived; (8) ‘servicer’ means an entity that manages a pool of purchased receivables or the underlying credit exposures on a day-to-day basis. 2. For the purposes of point (4)(b) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission may adopt, by way of implementing acts, and subject to the examination procedure referred to in Article 464(2), a decision as to whether a third country applies supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union. In the absence of such a decision, until 1 January 2015, institutions may continue to apply the treatment set out in this paragraph to a third country where the relevant competent authorities had approved the third country as eligible for this treatment before 1 January 2014.
Article 143 Permission to use the IRB Approach
1. Where the conditions set out in this Chapter are met, the competent authority shall permit institutions to calculate their risk-weighted exposure amounts using the Internal Ratings Based Approach (hereinafter referred to as ‘IRB Approach’). 2. Prior permission to use the IRB Approach, including own estimates of LGD and conversion factors, shall be required for each exposure class and for each rating system and internal models approaches to equity exposures and for each approach to estimating LGDs and conversion factors used. 3. Institutions shall obtain the prior permission of the competent authorities for the following: (a) material changes to the range of application of a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use; (b) material changes to a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use. The range of application of a rating system shall comprise all exposures of the relevant type of exposure for which that rating system was developed. 4. Institutions shall notify the competent authorities of all changes to rating systems and internal models approaches to equity exposures. 5. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions for assessing the materiality of the use of an existing rating system for other additional exposures not already covered by that rating system and changes to rating systems or internal models approaches to equity exposures under the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2013. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in pa rticular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the prudential regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. Amongst various subsequent changes, Regulation (EU) 2017/2395 3 has inserted in the CRR transitional arrangements for mitigating the impact on own funds from the introduction of the new accounting standard, the International Financial Reporting Standard – Financial Instruments (IFRS) 9. Regulation (EU) 2019/630 4 has introduced in the CRR a requirement for minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (the so-called prudential backstop). Furthermore, Reg ulation (EU) 2019/876 5 (CRR II) has added to the CRR some of the final elements of the international reforms (the finalised Basel III framework), which entail amongst others, a new definition of the leverage ratio and a leverage ratio buffer, which will pr event institutions from excessively increasing leverage. The latter Regulation has also introduced in the CRR more favourable prudential treatments of certain software assets, of certain pension- and salary-backed loans, as well as of loans to small and me dium sized enterprises (SMEs) and infrastructure projects. The severe economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional containment measures are having a far-reaching impact on the economy. Businesses are facing disruption in supply chains, temporary closures and reduced demand, while households are confronted with unemployment and a fall in income. Public authorities at Union and Member State levels have taken decisive actions to support households and solvent undertakings to withstand this severe but temporary slowdown in economic activity and the liquidity shortages that it will cause. Due to the reforms undertaken in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, credit institutions are today well capitalised and much more resilient than they were in 2008. This enables them to play a key role in managing the economic shock that stems from the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, uncertainty related to the pace of recovery of economic activity will inevitably have an impact on the banking sector. In reaction to the new circumstances, competent authorities across the Union have provided temporary capital and operational relief to ensure favourable conditions for credit institutions to continue lending amid COVID-19. It is therefore important that capital is deployed where it is most needed and that the prudential framework interacts smoothly with the various measures that address the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRR offers ample leeway for banks to support public and private initiatives to promote contin ued lending in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, while ensuring a prudent approach. The flexibility embedded in the CRR is described in the Commission Interpretative Communication of 28 April 2020 6 on the application of the accounting and prudential frameworks to facilitate bank lending in the Union amid COVID-19. Besides making full use of the flexibility allowed for in the existing framework, some limited changes to specific aspects of the CRR ar e necessary in order to maximise the capacity of credit institutions to lend and to absorb losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, while still ensuring their continued resilience. Moreover, at international level, the BCBS has agreed a one-year delay in t he deadline for implementing the final elements of the Basel III framework, of which some elements had been already incorporated in the CRR 7 , as well as a greater flexibility to the phase-in of the impact of the IFRS 9 on capital . These changes need to be reflected in the existing rules. First, it is necessary to adjust the transitional arrangements that allow credit institutions to alleviate the impact from expected credit-loss (ECL) provisioning under IFRS 9 on their own funds. This adjustment would allow credit institutions to better mitigate the impact of any potential increase in ECL provisioning caused by the deterioration in the credit quality of credit institutions’ exposures due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to account for the impact of COVID-19 related guarantees, the rules on the minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (NPEs) need to be adjusted to extend temporarily the treatment that is currently applicable to NPEs guaranteed or insured by export credit agencies to NPEs that would arise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and that are covered by the various guarantee schemes that were put in place by Member States. This would recognise the similar characteristics shared by export credit agencies guarantees and COVID-19 related guarantees. Third, the offsetting mechanism associated with the competent authority discretion to allow credit institutions to temporarily exclude exposures in the form of central bank reserves from the calculation of the leverage ratio needs to be modified. This would ensure that liquidity measures provided by central banks in a crisis context would be effectively channelled by credit institutions to the economy. Fourth, it is necessary to defer, in line with the decision of the BCBS, the application date of the new leverage ratio buffer requirement. This would free up credit institutions’ operational capacity and allow them to focus on the more immediate challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifth, the application dates of some of the capital benefits envisaged in the CRR but not yet applicable need to be anticipated, namely the provisions on the treatment of certain software assets, the provisions on certain loans backed by pensions or salaries, the revised supporting factor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and the new supporting factor for infrastructure finance. Advancing the date of application of the two supporting factors, the preferential treatment of certain software assets, and the preferential treatment of certain loans backed by pensions or salaries would free up own funds of institutions, allowing them to boost much needed lending during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. These proposed changes will not fundamentally alter the prudential regulatory framework. They form part of the response of the Commission to address the emergency situation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. These adjustments to the prudential framework would facilitate collective efforts aimed at mitigating the impact of the pandemic and thus moving towards a fast recovery.
Revised version (Article 143 Permission to use the IRB Approach):
1. Where the conditions set out in this Chapter are met, the competent authority shall permit institutions to calculate their risk-weighted exposure amounts using the Internal Ratings Based Approach (hereinafter referred to as ‘IRB Approach’). 2. Prior permission to use the IRB Approach, including own estimates of LGD and conversion factors, shall be required for each exposure class and for each rating system and internal models approaches to equity exposures and for each approach to estimating LGDs and conversion factors used. 3. Institutions shall obtain the prior permission of the competent authorities for the following: (a) material changes to the range of application of a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use; (b) material changes to a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use. Institutions shall obtain the prior permission of the competent authorities for the following: (a) material changes to the range of application of a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use; (b) material changes to a rating system or an internal models approach to equity exposures that the institution has received permission to use. The range of application of a rating system shall comprise all exposures of the relevant type of exposure for which that rating system was developed. 4. Institutions shall notify the competent authorities of all changes to rating systems and internal models approaches to equity exposures. 5. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions for assessing the materiality of the use of an existing rating system for other additional exposures not already covered by that rating system and changes to rating systems or internal models approaches to equity exposures under the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2013. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 144 Competent authorities' assessment of an application to use an IRB Approach
1. The competent authority shall grant permission pursuant to Article 143 for an institution to use the IRB Approach, including to use own estimates of LGD and conversion factors, only if the competent authority is satisfied that requirements laid down in this Chapter are met, in particular those laid down in Section 6, and that the systems of the institution for the management and rating of credit risk exposures are sound and implemented with integrity and, in particular, that the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the following standards are met: (a) the institution's rating systems provide for a meaningful assessment of obligor and transaction characteristics, a meaningful differentiation of risk and accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risk; (b) internal ratings and default and loss estimates used in the calculation of own funds requirements and associated systems and processes play an essential role in the risk management and decision-making process, and in the credit approval, internal capital allocation and corporate governance functions of the institution; (c) the institution has a credit risk control unit responsible for its rating systems that is appropriately independent and free from undue influence; (d) the institution collects and stores all relevant data to provide effective support to its credit risk measurement and management process; (e) the institution documents its rating systems and the rationale for their design and validates its rating systems; (f) the institution has validated each rating system and each internal models approach for equity exposures during an appropriate time period prior to the permission to use this rating system or internal models approach to equity exposures, has assessed during this time period whether the rating system or internal models approaches for equity exposures are suited to the range of application of the rating system or internal models approach for equity exposures, and has made necessary changes to these rating systems or internal models approaches for equity exposures following from its assessment; (g) the institution has calculated under the IRB Approach the own funds requirements resulting from its risk parameters estimates and is able to submit the reporting as required by Article 99; (h) the institution has assigned and continues with assigning each exposure in the range of application of a rating system to a rating grade or pool of this rating system; the institution has assigned and continues with assigning each exposure in the range of application of an approach for equity exposures to this internal models approach. The requirements to use an IRB Approach, including own estimates of LGD and conversion factors, apply also where an institution has implemented a rating system, or model used within a rating system, that it has purchased from a third-party vendor. 2. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology competent authorities shall follow in assessing the compliance of an institution with the requirements to use the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 64 8 /2012 1 (the European Market Infrastructure Regulation or “EMIR”) regulates derivatives transactions, including measures to limit their risks through clearing in central counterparties (CCPs). 2 CCPs take on the risks faced by the parties to a trade, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. By doing so, they increase market transparency and efficiency and reduce the risks in financial markets, especially for derivatives . EMIR was adopted in the wake of the 2008/2009 financial crisis to promote financial stability and to make markets more transparent, more standardised, and thus safer. EMIR requires that derivatives transactions are reported to ensure market transparency for regulators and supervisors and that their risks are appropriately mitigated through central clearing at a CCP or by exchanging collateral, known as ‘margin’, in bilateral transactions. CCPs, and the risks they manage, have grown considerably since the adoption of EMIR. In 2017, the Commission published two legislative proposals amending EMIR, both of which were adopted by the co-legislators in 2019. EMIR REFIT 3 recalibrated some of the requirements under EMIR to ensure their proportionality, while ensuring financial stability. Acknowledging the emerging issues related to the increasing concentration of risks in CCPs, in particular third-country CCPs, EMIR 2.2 4 revised the supervisory framework and set out a process for assessing the systemic nature of third-country CCPs by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the central banks of issue. EMIR is complemented by the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation 5 , adopted in 2020, 6 to prepare for the unlikely – though massively impactful - event that an EU CCP faces severe financial distress. 7 Whilst EMIR has established a robust framework for central clearing, certain areas of the current supervisory framework have proven overly complex. This limits EU CCPs’ ability to attract business both within the EU and internationally. The supervisory approval procedures for launching new clearing services and activities by EU CCPs, as well as changes in their risk models, are in many cases unnecessarily long and burdensome. The current rules are there to ensure the safety and soundness of EU CCPs, but this could be done in many ways and the existing processes have been challenged as too slow and, at times, disproportionate in light of the envisaged change. It should not take years for approving a new product, and changes to risk models need to be swift to reflect changing market and economic circumstances. Delays in approvals increase costs and reduce the attractiveness of EU CCPs, and consequently of the EU as a place to do business. The proposal aims at mitigating these obstacles in order to foster modern and competitive CCPs in the EU that can attract business. EMIR provides a comprehensive and robust prudential framework for CCPs and the newly adopted CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation further strengthens the soundness of EU CCPs. This proposal aims for the EU to continue to base the evolution of its central clearing ecosystem on the strength of its rules and supervision. Robust and safe CCPs enhance the trust of the financial system and crucially support the liquidity of key markets. A safe, robust and resilient clearing ecosystem is a pre-condition for it to grow further. The EU central clearing ecosystem should enable EU firms to hedge their risks efficiently and safely, while at the same time safeguarding the wider financial stability. In this way, central clearing will support the EU economy. This proposal aims to put firms in a better position by being able to predict the liquidity needs associated with central clearing. A competitive and efficient EU clearing ecosystem will increase central clearing activities, but central clearing also entails risks by centralising transactions in a few CCPs being financially systemically important. Hence, those risks must be appropriately managed by CCPs and CCPs must continue to be thoroughly supervised both at the national and the wider EU level. Therefore, this proposal aims at ensuring a robust and joined-up supervision, building on the supervisory system the EU currently has in place. In addition, since 2017, concerns have been repeatedly expressed about the ongoing risks to the EU financial stability arising from the excessive concentration of clearing in some third-country CCPs, notably in a stress scenario. H igh-risk but low-probability events can happen, and the EU must be prepared to face them 8 . While EU CCPs have generally proven resilient, experience has shown that the EU clearing ecosystem can be made stronger, to the benefit of financial stability. However, open strategic autonomy also means that the EU needs to safeguard itself against the financial stability risks which can arise when EU market participants are excessively reliant on third-country entities, as this can be a source of vulnerabilit y . Therefore, this proposal aims at making the equivalence framework in EMIR more proportionate and to better tailor cooperation with foreign supervisors taking into account the risks posed by CCPs based in third countries – and without compromising on the need for third countries to have sound rules in place . It is also proposed that the equivalence procedure is made simpler when the risks involved in central clearing in a third country are particularly low. In addition, this proposal seeks to build up the EU’s central clearing capacity and thereby increase liquidity at EU CCPs with the aim to reduce the risks posed to the EU financial stability by excessive exposures to third-country CCPs. Therefore, this proposal requires all market participants subject to a clearing obligation, to hold active accounts at EU CCPs for clearing products that have been identified by ESMA as of substantial systemic importance for the EU financial stability. T his proposal is complemented by a proposal for a Directive introducing a limited number of changes to Directive 2013/36/EU 9 (Capital Requirements Directive or ‘CRD’), Directive (EU) 2019/2034 10 (Investment Firms Directive or ‘IFD’) and Directive 2009/65/EU 11 (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive or ‘UCITS Directive’) as regards the treatment of concentration risk towards CCPs and the counterparty risk on centrally cleared derivative transactions. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the objectives of this EMIR review are achieved as well as to assure coherence. The two proposals should therefore be read in conjunction.
Revised version (Article 144 Competent authorities' assessment of an application to use an IRB Approach):
The requirements to use an IRB Approach, including own estimates of LGD and conversion factors, apply also where an institution has implemented a rating system, or model used within a rating system, that it has purchased from a third-party vendor. 2. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the assessment methodology competent authorities are to follow when assessing the compliance of an institution with the requirements to use the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 10 July 2026. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 145 Prior experience of using IRB approaches
1. An institution applying to use the IRB Approach shall have been using for the IRB exposure classes in question rating systems that were broadly in line with the requirements set out in Section 6 for internal risk measurement and management purposes for at least three years prior to its qualification to use the IRB Approach. 2. An institution applying for the use of own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that it has been estimating and employing own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors in a manner that is broadly consistent with the requirements for use of own estimates of those parameters set out in Section 6 for at least three years prior to qualification to use own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors. 3. Where the institution extends the use of the IRB Approach subsequent to its initial permission, the experience of the institution shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 in respect of the additional exposures covered. If the use of rating systems is extended to exposures that are significantly different from the scope of the existing coverage, such that the existing experience cannot be reasonably assumed to be sufficient to meet the requirements of these provisions in respect of the additional exposures, then the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply separately for the additional exposures.
Article 146 Measures to be taken where the requirements of this Chapter cease to be met
Where an institution ceases to comply with the requirements laid down in this Chapter, it shall notify the competent authority and do one of the following: (a) present to the satisfaction of the competent authority a plan for a timely return to compliance and realise this plan within a period agreed with the competent authority; (b) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that the effect of non-compliance is immaterial.
Article 147 Methodology to assign exposures to exposure classes
1. The methodology used by the institution for assigning exposures to different exposure classes shall be appropriate and consistent over time. 2. Each exposure shall be assigned to one of the following exposure classes: (a) exposures to central governments and central banks; (b) exposures to institutions; (c) exposures to corporates; (d) retail exposures; (e) equity exposures; (f) items representing securitisation positions; (g) other non credit-obligation assets. 3. The following exposures shall be assigned to the class laid down in point (a) of paragraph 2: (a) exposures to regional governments, local authorities or public sector entities which are treated as exposures to central governments under Articles 115 and 116; (b) exposures to multilateral development banks referred to in Article 117(2); (c) exposures to International Organisations which attract a risk weight of 0 % under Article 118. 4. The following exposures shall be assigned to the class laid down in point (b) of paragraph 2: (a) exposures to regional governments and local authorities which are not treated as exposures to central governments in accordance with Article 115(2) and (4); (b) exposures to public sector entities which are not treated as exposures to central governments in accordance with Article 116(4); (c) exposures to multilateral development banks which are not assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 117; and (d) exposures to financial institutions which are treated as exposures to institutions in accordance with Article 119(5). 5. To be eligible for the retail exposure class laid down in point (d) of paragraph 2, exposures shall meet the following criteria: (a) they shall be one of the following: (i) exposures to one or more natural persons; (ii) exposures to an SME, provided in that case that the total amount owed to the institution and parent undertakings and its subsidiaries, including any past due exposure, by the obligor client or group of connected clients, but excluding exposures secured on residential property collateral, shall not, to the knowledge of the institution, which shall have taken reasonable steps to confirm the situation, exceed EUR 1 million; (a) they shall be one of the following: (i) exposures to one or more natural persons; (ii) exposures to an SME, provided in that case that the total amount owed to the institution and parent undertakings and its subsidiaries, including any past due exposure, by the obligor client or group of connected clients, but excluding exposures secured on residential property collateral, shall not, to the knowledge of the institution, which shall have taken reasonable steps to confirm the situation, exceed EUR 1 million; (b) they are treated by the institution in its risk management consistently over time and in a similar manner; (c) they are not managed just as individually as exposures in the corporate exposure class; (d) they each represent one of a significant number of similarly managed exposures. In addition to the exposures listed in the first subparagraph, the present value of retail minimum lease payments shall be included in the retail exposure class. 6. The following exposures shall be assigned to the equity exposure class laid down in point (e) of paragraph 2: (a) non-debt exposures conveying a subordinated, residual claim on the assets or income of the issuer; (b) debt exposures and other securities, partnerships, derivatives, or other vehicles, the economic substance of which is similar to the exposures specified in point (a). 7. Any credit obligation not assigned to the exposure classes laid down in points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 2 shall be assigned to the corporate exposure class referred to in point (c) of that paragraph. 8. Within the corporate exposure class laid down in point (c) of paragraph 2, institutions shall separately identify as specialised lending exposures, exposures which possess the following characteristics: (a) the exposure is to an entity which was created specifically to finance or operate physical assets or is an economically comparable exposure; (b) the contractual arrangements give the lender a substantial degree of control over the assets and the income that they generate; (c) the primary source of repayment of the obligation is the income generated by the assets being financed, rather than the independent capacity of a broader commercial enterprise. 9. The residual value of leased properties shall be assigned to the exposure class laid down in point (g) of paragraph 2, except to the extent that residual value is already included in the lease exposure laid down in Article 166(4). 10. The exposure from providing protection under an nth-to-default basket credit derivative shall be assigned to the same class laid down in paragraph 2 to which the exposures in the basket would be assigned, except if the individual exposures in the basket would be assigned to various exposure classes in which case the exposure shall be assigned to the corporates exposure class laid down in point (c) of paragraph 2.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The term 'commodity dealer' covers a wide spectrum of actors in energy and commodity markets: some trade exclusively in commodity derivative contracts and resemble investment firms in terms of functions and risks, whereas others trade commodity derivatives purely as an ancillary activity to commodities production. The requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the 'Capital Requirements Regulation' or 'CRR') and in Directive 2013/36/EU (the 'Capital Requirements Directive' or 'CRD') apply to both credit institutions and investment firms. The prudential regime applicable to investment firms is derived from that imposed on credit institutions, adapted as a function of the investment services that they provide. Articles 493(1) and 498(1) of the CRR exempt commodity dealers ("investment firms whose main business consists exclusively of the provision of investment services or activities in relation to the financial instruments set out in points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and to whom Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field did not apply on 31 December 2006") from large exposures requirements and from own funds requirements respectively. Both exemptions expire on 31 December 2017. This 'sunset clause' was originally included in the CRR in order to allow time for regulators to determine a prudential regulation adapted to the risk profile of commodity dealers. 1 To this end, Articles 493(2) and 498(2) of the CRR mandate the Commission to prepare reports by the end of 2015. On the basis of those reports, the Commission may decide to submit proposals to amend the CRR. The Commission is also required to submit, within the same deadline, a report on an appropriate regime for the prudential supervision of investment firms in general. Here again, the report may be followed by a Commission proposal. Since the abovementioned reports are related, the Commission decided to undertake a single review (henceforth 'investment firms review') and prepare a single report on the above topics. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure the development of a coherent prudential framework for all types of investment firms. The work on the investment firms review is already underway: the Commission asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to provide technical advice on the matter. The advice is expected by the end of September 2015. The Commission will then use the advice to prepare its own report. Should the Commission decide to change the existing prudential framework for investment firms, the report will detail the next steps of the investment firms review and the broad outline of the changes the Commission is contemplating. The investment firms review is a complex project which will not be completed by the end of this year. It is therefore highly improbable that any legislation that may result from this review can be prepared, adopted and applied before the current exemptions expire (i.e. before the end of 2017). This has implications for commodity dealers: if no specific prudential framework that may result from the investment firm review would be in place by then, they would be subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements starting from 1 January 2018. There are two problems related to this scenario. First, commodity dealers would become subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements without a conscious (and informed) decision that such treatment is indeed the most appropriate one for them. Second, assuming that the investment firm review would result in a tailor-made prudential framework for commodity dealers, they would be deprived of a stable regulatory framework. They would move from the current treatment where they are exempted from large exposures and own funds requirements, to a temporary treatment comprising the full CRR/CRD requirements, and eventually to the aforementioned tailor-made framework within a very short period of time (one to two years). This is not a desirable outcome. To prevent that this situation arises it is therefore opportune to extend the existing exemptions laid down in the CRR. The extension should take into account the amount of time that will be necessary to conclude the investment firms review and to prepare, adopt and apply any legislation that may result from that review.
Revised version (Article 147 Methodology to assign exposures to exposure classes):
1. The methodology used by the institution for assigning exposures to different exposure classes shall be appropriate and consistent over time. 2. Each exposure shall be assigned to one of the following exposure classes: (a) exposures to central governments and central banks; (b) exposures to institutions; (c) exposures to corporates; (d) retail exposures; (e) equity exposures; (f) items representing securitisation positions; (g) other non credit-obligation assets. 3. The following exposures shall be assigned to the class laid down in point (a) of paragraph 2: (a) exposures to regional governments, local authorities or public sector entities which are treated as exposures to central governments under Articles 115 and 116; (b) exposures to multilateral development banks referred to in Article 117(2); (c) exposures to International Organisations which attract a risk weight of 0 % under Article 118. 4. The following exposures shall be assigned to the class laid down in point (b) of paragraph 2: (a) exposures to regional governments and local authorities which are not treated as exposures to central governments in accordance with Article 115(2) and (4); (b) exposures to public sector entities which are not treated as exposures to central governments in accordance with Article 116(4); (c) exposures to multilateral development banks which are not assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 117; and (d) exposures to financial institutions which are treated as exposures to institutions in accordance with Article 119(5). 5. To be eligible for the retail exposure class laid down in point (d) of paragraph 2, exposures shall meet the following criteria: (a) they shall be one of the following: (i) exposures to one or more natural persons; (ii) exposures to an SME, provided in that case that the total amount owed to the institution and parent undertakings and its subsidiaries, including any past due exposure, by the obligor client or group of connected clients, but excluding exposures secured on residential property collateral, shall not, to the knowledge of the institution, which shall have taken reasonable steps to confirm the situation, exceed EUR 1 million; (b) they are treated by the institution in its risk management consistently over time and in a similar manner; (c) they are not managed just as individually as exposures in the corporate exposure class; (d) they each represent one of a significant number of similarly managed exposures. In addition to the exposures listed in the first subparagraph, the present value of retail minimum lease payments shall be included in the retail exposure class. 6. The following exposures shall be assigned to the equity exposure class laid down in point (e) of paragraph 2: (a) non-debt exposures conveying a subordinated, residual claim on the assets or income of the issuer; (b) debt exposures and other securities, partnerships, derivatives, or other vehicles, the economic substance of which is similar to the exposures specified in point (a). 7. Any credit obligation not assigned to the exposure classes laid down in points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 2 shall be assigned to the corporate exposure class referred to in point (c) of that paragraph. 8. Within the corporate exposure class laid down in point (c) of paragraph 2, institutions shall separately identify as specialised lending exposures, exposures which possess the following characteristics: (a) the exposure is to an entity which was created specifically to finance or operate physical assets or is an economically comparable exposure; (b) the contractual arrangements give the lender a substantial degree of control over the assets and the income that they generate; (c) the primary source of repayment of the obligation is the income generated by the assets being financed, rather than the independent capacity of a broader commercial enterprise. 9. The residual value of leased properties shall be assigned to the exposure class laid down in point (g) of paragraph 2, except to the extent that residual value is already included in the lease exposure laid down in Article 166(4). 10. The exposure from providing protection under an nth-to-default basket credit derivative shall be assigned to the same class laid down in paragraph 2 to which the exposures in the basket would be assigned, except if the individual exposures in the basket would be assigned to various exposure classes in which case the exposure shall be assigned to the corporates exposure class laid down in point (c) of paragraph 2.
Article 148 Conditions for implementing the IRB Approach across different classes of exposure and business units
1. Institutions and any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries shall implement the IRB Approach for all exposures, unless they have received the permission of the competent authorities to permanently use the Standardised Approach in accordance with Article 150. Subject to the prior permission of the competent authorities, implementation may be carried out sequentially across the different exposure classes referred to in Article 147 within the same business unit, across different business units in the same group or for the use of own estimates of LGDs or conversion factors for the calculation of risk weights for exposures to corporates, institutions, and central governments and central banks. In the case of the retail exposure class referred to in Article 147(5), implementation may be carried out sequentially across the categories of exposures to which the different correlations in Article 154 correspond. 2. Competent authorities shall determine the time period over which an institution and any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries shall be required to implement the IRB Approach for all exposures. This time period shall be one that competent authorities consider to be appropriate on the basis of the nature and scale of the activities of the institutions, or any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries, and the number and nature of rating systems to be implemented. 3. Institutions shall carry out implementation of the IRB Approach in accordance with conditions determined by the competent authorities. The competent authority shall design those conditions such that they ensure that the flexibility under paragraph 1 is not used selectively for the purposes of achieving reduced own funds requirements in respect of those exposure classes or business units that are yet to be included in the IRB Approach or in the use of own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors. 4. Institutions that have begun to use the IRB Approach only after 1 January 2013 or that have until that date been required by the competent authorities to be able to calculate their capital requirements using the Standardised Approach shall retain their ability to calculate capital requirements using the Standardised Approach for all their exposures during the implementation period until the competent authorities notify them that they are satisfied that the implementation of the IRB Approach will be completed with reasonable certainty. 5. An institution that is permitted to use the IRB Approach for any exposure class shall use the IRB Approach for the equity exposure class laid down in point (e) of Article 147(2), except where that institution is permitted to apply the Standardised Approach for equity exposures pursuant to Article 150 and for the other non credit-obligation assets exposure class laid down in point (g) of Article 147(2). 6. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions according to which competent authorities shall determine the appropriate nature and timing of the sequential roll out of the IRB Approach across exposure classes referred to in paragraph 3. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal aims to amend Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) to maintain the current transitional approach to the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) requirement. The NSFR requirement is part of the Basel III international standards, which the European Union (EU) agreed to implement as part of the wide-ranging reform of the prudential framework for banks in the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The NSFR requirement aims to ensure that banks have stable funding sources to fund their activities and reduce their dependency on short-term wholesale funding. It was designed to mitigate maturity transformation risk, as a globally consistent regulatory requirement, aiming to foster convergence across jurisdictions and eliminate opportunities for cross-border regulatory arbitrage. In particular, the Basel NSFR standard introduces a minimum requirement on the amount of stable funding that banks must issue to finance their activities, based on the liquidity profile of their assets. It mitigates a bank’s liquidity risk by setting a required stable funding (RSF) level based on the bank’s assets, which is then compared to the available stable funding (ASF) that results from their liability instruments. Securities Financing Transactions ( SFT s) as defined u nder Article 4(1 ), point 139 of the CRR encompass different secured transaction types in which assets (collateral) are exchanged for cash: (i) rep urchase (rep os ) and reverse-repurchase (reverse-repos) , (ii) securities lending , (iii) buy-sell-back , and (iv) margin lending. Repos and reverse-repos make up the largest share of SFTs, account ing for 68% of the total, followed by securities lending ( 23% ) , buy-sell-back ( 8% ) , and margin lending ( 1% ) (September 2023 data) 1 . A repo is a collateralised and generally short-term borrowing transaction. A reverse-repo is a collateralised lending transaction, mirroring a repo transaction, where a bank (the lender) temporarily purchases securities or commodities (i.e. collateral) from a counterparty (the borrower) in exchange for cash with a commitment to sell the collateral back in the future at a predetermined price. Unsecured lending transactions are loans that are not secured by any collateral. They are based on the borrower’s creditworthiness and promise to repay. They were mainly found on the interbank markets before the GFC. Since the GFC and the closure of the unsecured interbank markets, SFTs have play ed a crucial role in the circulation of short-term funding between banks and market players through collateralised transactions. SFT market activity also links the short-term money market to the longer-term capital market. The bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. SFT s are characterised as a high-volume, low-margin business activity for large banks, and th is wholesale market activity is prone to international competition as highlighted by the very cross-border nature of these transactions . Only 41% of the EU SFT amount s are between EU counterparties , meanwhile 59% of the EU SFT amount s involve one non-EU counterparty 2 . For monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months, the Basel NSFR standard requires a conservative non-zero RSF requirement on banks. The objective is to discourage excessive short-term exposures between banks, which may give rise to contagion during times of financial distress. The NSFR standard was implemented in EU law on 20 May 2019 through an amendment of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2). The related requirements entered into application at the end of June 2021. In its proposal amending the CRR, published on 23 November 2016 3 , the Commission suggested the permanent use of RSF levels low e r than those included in the Basel accord . The Commission concluded at the time that ‘ it seems reasonable to bring limited changes to the treatment of both short-term transactions with financial institutions, and of HQLA Level 1 [ in order ] not to hinder the good functioning of EU financial and repo markets ’ . The arguments and analysis that led to this approach and the impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal are still valid 4 . The co-legislators , however, allowed for a transitional 0% RSF requirement – instead of the 10% RSF specified in the Basel III standards and the lower one (5%) proposed by the Commission – for monies due from SFTs with maturities up to six months , when collateralised with Level 1 High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) 5 , such as sovereign debt. This provision is set to expire in June 2025, when the non-zero RSF requirement set out in the Basel standard would start to apply. The transitional provision aimed to give banks sufficient time to adapt to the more conservative requirement imposed by the Basel standards and to mitigate any consequential effect on the EU capital market, and in particular on the sovereign debt market. Similar transitional provisions were also agreed for short-term monies due from SFTs collateralised by assets other than Level 1 HQLA and for short-term unsecured transactions with financial customers. These exposures are relatively less material compared to monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA. They are also characterised by higher margins. The considerations of the co-legislators when granting a transitional treatment for these transactions were their inherent funding characteristics and the impact of the level of RSF factors for these transactions on the market liquidity, especially of assets received as collateral in SFT transactions. The transitional prudential charge defined by co-legislators maintains a difference in the stable funding requirement that is consistent with the Basel standard, between monies due from SFTs collateralised by Level 1 HQLA, such as sovereign bonds, and monies due from SFTs collateralised by other assets. It contributes however not to increase the pressure on very high-quality collateral, beyond addressing the sovereign-bank nexus. It also supports the market liquidity and the diversity of collateral assets eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks, under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). As regards unsecured funding transactions with a residual maturity below six months, with financial customers, the transitional treatment aims to apply a proportionate funding requirement to these transactions, in line with their funding risk profile, and to support the revive of the unsecured funding market that vanished after the 2008 GFC. Unsecured funding transactions should indeed be considered as a necessary complement to secured funding transactions such as SFTs, to support overall market liquidity and monetary policy transmission, in particular during periods of monetary policy tightening. The United States , the United Kingdom , Japan and Switzerland have adopted a similar treatment as the EU’s transitional treatment, but these countries have made it a permanent one . The US agencies argue that ‘ the 0% RSF factor assignment was made based on the determination that Level 1 HQLA pose minimal liquidity risk and contribute importantly to the good functioning of short-term funding markets, i.e. that a non-zero RSF factor on Level 1 HQLA could discourage intermediation in US Treasury and repo markets ’ 6 . The end of the current transitional treatment and the resulting tightening of the NSFR requirement in the EU raises some concerns. It could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and reduce the liquidity in these markets because these high-volume low-margin transactions would become more costly. Further increasing the costs of these transactions when operated by EU counterparties, while 59% of EU transactions already involve one non-EU counterparty, may develop the attractiveness of non-EU counterparties or non-EU capital markets. This would contradict the development and sustainability of capital markets and liquidity for collateral assets, such as sovereign bonds, in the EU. If the EU was to increase the RSF factors for these transactions, in a unilateral way, it would distort the international level playing field, putting EU banks at a disadvantage compared to non-EU peers operating on this very international and competitive activity. Somehow, reinforcing the unlevel playing field would be at odd with one of the initial objectives of the Basel standards to support the implementation of globally consistent regulatory requirements and to reduce opportunities for cross border regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, maintaining the current treatment, in line with the approach retained by other jurisdictions, may support the development of a liquid and attractive sovereign debt market and a deep SFT market for EU collateral instruments. The current requirements have proven to be prudentially sound since their entry into application in mid-2021 and do not seem to have raised any financial stability concerns, in particular during the recent stress episodes (Russian aggression, UK Gilt crisis, March 2023 banking turmoil). Since mid-2021, EU banks have built up strong NSFR buffers, beyond minimum requirements, subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. Any effect of maintaining the transitional treatment will continue to be monitored and subject to adequate supervisory scrutiny, including on banks’ funding practices and liquidity risk profile, through ongoing supervision and periodic reports. Under Article 510(7) of the CRR2, the Commission is required to assess the relevance of the transitional NSFR treatment of monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions, with financial customers, with a residual maturity below six months, by the end of June 2024, based on a report from the European Banking Authority (EBA). As explained in Section 3, the EBA’s report only analysed the impact on banks’ NSFR levels, that appears negligible. However, a broader analysis points to possible undesirable effects of moving towards the RSF prescribed by Basel accord. The EU’s SFT market plays a crucial role in financing EU government debt as the bulk of SFTs are collateralised by sovereign debt. In addition, maintaining the transitional treatment supports the liquidity and diversity of assets that are also eligible to the liquidity buffer of banks under the LCR. It may indeed not be appropriate to disconnect the two dimensions of the liquidity requirements. It is also important to maintain the existing steps between the RSF factors for sovereign bonds collateral and other collateral used in SFTs as doing otherwise would affect the preference for one or the other, thereby risking reinforcing the pressure on (scarce) high quality collateral, beyond contributing to the sovereign-bank nexus. The unsecured funding market for banks has vanished after the 2008 GFC and has never been revived, at least not to a significant level. A non-zero RSF factor already applies to short-term unsecured transactions under the NSFR. An increase in this factor will not materially strengthen the prudential profile of banks, i.e. the impact on the NSFR would be negligible, while it may disincentivise the use of unsecured funding transactions that may prove helpful in a period of monetary policy tightening. An increase in the RSF level applicable to monies due from SFTs and unsecured transactions could discourage EU banks from intermediating in government debt and other collateral and reduce liquidity in the EU capital markets overall. An increase in the RSF for these transactions will not lead to a material change in the average level of the NSFR ratio of EU banks that already appears above the minimum requirements and is already subject to an ongoing supervision by competent authorities. It will therefore not change fundamentally the prudential profile of EU banks. This, in turn, could increase funding costs for Member States and EU market players in a period of normalised monetary policy when central banks are expected to reduce their market presence and private market players are expected to take over. To avoid possible unintended consequences on capital markets liquidity and considering the safeguards provided by the current framework for banks, the Commission proposes to maintain the transitional treatment for monies due from SFT and for unsecured transactions with a residual maturity of less than six months, with financial customers. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of capital market developments by central banks and to the ongoing supervision by competent authorities, the Commission also proposes to mandate the EBA to report the impact of this treatment every 5 years. This would allow the Commission to act accordingly and propose amendments if evidence emerges from these periodic monitoring reports.
Revised version (Article 148 Conditions for implementing the IRB Approach across different classes of exposure and business units):
1. An institution that is permitted to apply the IRB Approach in accordance with Article 107(1) shall, together with any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries, implement the IRB Approach for at least one of the exposure classes referred to in Article 147(2), point (a), point (aa)(i) or (ii), point (b), point (c)(i), (ii) or (iii), point (d)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), or point (g). Once an institution has implemented the IRB Approach for a certain type of exposures within an exposure class, it shall do so for all exposures within that exposure class, unless it has received the permission of the competent authority to use the Standardised Approach permanently in accordance with Article 150. Subject to the prior permission of the competent authorities, implementation of the IRB Approach may be carried out sequentially across the different types of exposures within a certain exposure class within the same business unit and across different business units in the same group, or for the use of own estimates of LGD or for the use of IRB-CCF. 2. Competent authorities shall determine the period over which an institution and any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries shall be required to implement the IRB Approach for all exposures within a certain exposure class across different types of exposures within the same business unit and across different business units in the same group, or for the use of own estimates of LGD or for the use of IRB-CCF. That period shall be one that competent authorities consider to be appropriate on the basis of the nature and scale of the activities of the institution concerned, or of any parent undertaking and its subsidiaries, and the number and nature of rating systems to be implemented. 3. Institutions shall carry out implementation of the IRB Approach in accordance with conditions determined by the competent authorities. The competent authority shall design those conditions in a way that they ensure that the flexibility under paragraph 1 is not used selectively for the purpose of achieving reduced own funds requirements in respect of those types of exposures or business units that are yet to be included in the IRB Approach or in the use of own estimates of LGD or in the use of IRB-CCF.
Article 149 Conditions to revert to the use of less sophisticated approaches
1. An institution that uses the IRB Approach for a particular exposure class or type of exposure shall not stop using that approach and use instead the Standardised Approach for the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts unless the following conditions are met: (a) the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the use of the Standardised Approach is not proposed in order to reduce the own funds requirement of the institution, is necessary on the basis of nature and complexity of the institution's total exposures of this type and would not have a material adverse impact on the solvency of the institution or its ability to manage risk effectively; (b) the institution has received the prior permission of the competent authority. 2. Institutions which have obtained permission under Article 151(9) to use own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors, shall not revert to the use of LGD values and conversion factors referred to in Article 151(8) unless the following conditions are met: (a) the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the use of LGDs and conversion factors laid down in Article 151(8) for a certain exposure class or type of exposure is not proposed in order to reduce the own funds requirement of the institution, is necessary on the basis of nature and complexity of the institution's total exposures of this type and would not have a material adverse impact on the solvency of the institution or its ability to manage risk effectively; 3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 is subject to the conditions for rolling out the IRB Approach determined by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 148 and the permission for permanent partial use referred to in Article 150.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in pa rticular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the prudential regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. Amongst various subsequent changes, Regulation (EU) 2017/2395 3 has inserted in the CRR transitional arrangements for mitigating the impact on own funds from the introduction of the new accounting standard, the International Financial Reporting Standard – Financial Instruments (IFRS) 9. Regulation (EU) 2019/630 4 has introduced in the CRR a requirement for minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (the so-called prudential backstop). Furthermore, Reg ulation (EU) 2019/876 5 (CRR II) has added to the CRR some of the final elements of the international reforms (the finalised Basel III framework), which entail amongst others, a new definition of the leverage ratio and a leverage ratio buffer, which will pr event institutions from excessively increasing leverage. The latter Regulation has also introduced in the CRR more favourable prudential treatments of certain software assets, of certain pension- and salary-backed loans, as well as of loans to small and me dium sized enterprises (SMEs) and infrastructure projects. The severe economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional containment measures are having a far-reaching impact on the economy. Businesses are facing disruption in supply chains, temporary closures and reduced demand, while households are confronted with unemployment and a fall in income. Public authorities at Union and Member State levels have taken decisive actions to support households and solvent undertakings to withstand this severe but temporary slowdown in economic activity and the liquidity shortages that it will cause. Due to the reforms undertaken in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, credit institutions are today well capitalised and much more resilient than they were in 2008. This enables them to play a key role in managing the economic shock that stems from the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, uncertainty related to the pace of recovery of economic activity will inevitably have an impact on the banking sector. In reaction to the new circumstances, competent authorities across the Union have provided temporary capital and operational relief to ensure favourable conditions for credit institutions to continue lending amid COVID-19. It is therefore important that capital is deployed where it is most needed and that the prudential framework interacts smoothly with the various measures that address the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRR offers ample leeway for banks to support public and private initiatives to promote contin ued lending in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, while ensuring a prudent approach. The flexibility embedded in the CRR is described in the Commission Interpretative Communication of 28 April 2020 6 on the application of the accounting and prudential frameworks to facilitate bank lending in the Union amid COVID-19. Besides making full use of the flexibility allowed for in the existing framework, some limited changes to specific aspects of the CRR ar e necessary in order to maximise the capacity of credit institutions to lend and to absorb losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, while still ensuring their continued resilience. Moreover, at international level, the BCBS has agreed a one-year delay in t he deadline for implementing the final elements of the Basel III framework, of which some elements had been already incorporated in the CRR 7 , as well as a greater flexibility to the phase-in of the impact of the IFRS 9 on capital . These changes need to be reflected in the existing rules. First, it is necessary to adjust the transitional arrangements that allow credit institutions to alleviate the impact from expected credit-loss (ECL) provisioning under IFRS 9 on their own funds. This adjustment would allow credit institutions to better mitigate the impact of any potential increase in ECL provisioning caused by the deterioration in the credit quality of credit institutions’ exposures due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to account for the impact of COVID-19 related guarantees, the rules on the minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (NPEs) need to be adjusted to extend temporarily the treatment that is currently applicable to NPEs guaranteed or insured by export credit agencies to NPEs that would arise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and that are covered by the various guarantee schemes that were put in place by Member States. This would recognise the similar characteristics shared by export credit agencies guarantees and COVID-19 related guarantees. Third, the offsetting mechanism associated with the competent authority discretion to allow credit institutions to temporarily exclude exposures in the form of central bank reserves from the calculation of the leverage ratio needs to be modified. This would ensure that liquidity measures provided by central banks in a crisis context would be effectively channelled by credit institutions to the economy. Fourth, it is necessary to defer, in line with the decision of the BCBS, the application date of the new leverage ratio buffer requirement. This would free up credit institutions’ operational capacity and allow them to focus on the more immediate challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifth, the application dates of some of the capital benefits envisaged in the CRR but not yet applicable need to be anticipated, namely the provisions on the treatment of certain software assets, the provisions on certain loans backed by pensions or salaries, the revised supporting factor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and the new supporting factor for infrastructure finance. Advancing the date of application of the two supporting factors, the preferential treatment of certain software assets, and the preferential treatment of certain loans backed by pensions or salaries would free up own funds of institutions, allowing them to boost much needed lending during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. These proposed changes will not fundamentally alter the prudential regulatory framework. They form part of the response of the Commission to address the emergency situation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. These adjustments to the prudential framework would facilitate collective efforts aimed at mitigating the impact of the pandemic and thus moving towards a fast recovery.
Revised version (Article 149 Conditions to revert to the use of less sophisticated approaches):
1. An institution that uses the IRB Approach for a particular exposure class or type of exposure shall not stop using that approach and use instead the Standardised Approach for the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts unless the following conditions are met: (a) the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the use of the Standardised Approach is not proposed in order to reduce the own funds requirement of the institution, is necessary on the basis of nature and complexity of the institution's total exposures of this type and would not have a material adverse impact on the solvency of the institution or its ability to manage risk effectively; (b) the institution has received the prior permission of the competent authority. An institution that uses the IRB Approach for a particular exposure class or type of exposure shall not stop using that approach and use instead the Standardised Approach for the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts unless the following conditions are met: (a) the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the use of the Standardised Approach is not proposed in order to reduce the own funds requirement of the institution, is necessary on the basis of nature and complexity of the institution's total exposures of this type and would not have a material adverse impact on the solvency of the institution or its ability to manage risk effectively; (b) the institution has received the prior permission of the competent authority. 2. Institutions which have obtained permission under Article 151(9) to use own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors, shall not revert to the use of LGD values and conversion factors referred to in Article 151(8) unless the following conditions are met: (a) the institution has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the use of LGDs and conversion factors laid down in Article 151(8) for a certain exposure class or type of exposure is not proposed in order to reduce the own funds requirement of the institution, is necessary on the basis of nature and complexity of the institution's total exposures of this type and would not have a material adverse impact on the solvency of the institution or its ability to manage risk effectively; 3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 is subject to the conditions for rolling out the IRB Approach determined by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 148 and the permission for permanent partial use referred to in Article 150.
Article 150 Conditions for permanent partial use
1. Where institutions have received the prior permission of the competent authorities, institutions permitted to use the IRB Approach in the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts for one or more exposure classes may apply the Standardised Approach for the following exposures: (a) the exposure class laid down in Article 147(2)(a), where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome for the institution to implement a rating system for these counterparties; (b) the exposure class laid down in Article 147(2)(b), where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome for the institution to implement a rating system for these counterparties; (c) exposures in non-significant business units as well as exposure classes or types of exposures that are immaterial in terms of size and perceived risk profile; (d) exposures to central governments and central banks of the Member States and their regional governments, local authorities, administrative bodies and public sector entities provided that: (i) there is no difference in risk between the exposures to that central government and central bank and those other exposures because of specific public arrangements; and (ii) exposures to the central government and central bank are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 114(2) or (4) or Article 495(2); (d) exposures to central governments and central banks of the Member States and their regional governments, local authorities, administrative bodies and public sector entities provided that: (i) there is no difference in risk between the exposures to that central government and central bank and those other exposures because of specific public arrangements; and (ii) exposures to the central government and central bank are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 114(2) or (4) or Article 495(2); (e) exposures of an institution to a counterparty which is its parent undertaking, its subsidiary or a subsidiary of its parent undertaking provided that the counterparty is an institution or a financial holding company, mixed financial holding company, financial institution, asset management company or ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements or an undertaking linked by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC; (f) exposures between institutions which meet the requirements set out in Article 113(7); (g) equity exposures to entities whose credit obligations are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Chapter 2 including those publicly sponsored entities where a 0 % risk weight can be applied; (h) equity exposures incurred under legislative programmes to promote specified sectors of the economy that provide significant subsidies for the investment to the institution and involve some form of government oversight and restrictions on the equity investments where such exposures may in aggregate be excluded from the IRB Approach only up to a limit of 10 % of own funds; (i) the exposures identified in Article 119(4) meeting the conditions specified therein; (j) State and State-reinsured guarantees referred to in Article 215(2). The competent authorities shall permit the application of Standardised Approach for equity exposures referred to in points (g) and (h) of the first subparagraph which have been permitted for that treatment in other Member States. EBA shall publish on its website and regularly update a list of the exposures referred to in those points to be treated according to the Standardised Approach. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the equity exposure class of an institution shall be material if their aggregate value, excluding equity exposures incurred under legislative programmes as referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1, exceeds on average over the preceding year 10 % of the own funds of the institution. Where the number of those equity exposures is less than 10 individual holdings, that threshold shall be 5 % of the own funds of the institution. 3. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the conditions of application of points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 4. EBA shall issue guidelines on the application of point (d) of paragraph 1 in 2018, recommending limits in terms of a percentage of total balance sheet and/or risk weighted assets to be calculated in accordance with the Standardised Approach. Those guidelines shall be adopted in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The term 'commodity dealer' covers a wide spectrum of actors in energy and commodity markets: some trade exclusively in commodity derivative contracts and resemble investment firms in terms of functions and risks, whereas others trade commodity derivatives purely as an ancillary activity to commodities production. The requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the 'Capital Requirements Regulation' or 'CRR') and in Directive 2013/36/EU (the 'Capital Requirements Directive' or 'CRD') apply to both credit institutions and investment firms. The prudential regime applicable to investment firms is derived from that imposed on credit institutions, adapted as a function of the investment services that they provide. Articles 493(1) and 498(1) of the CRR exempt commodity dealers ("investment firms whose main business consists exclusively of the provision of investment services or activities in relation to the financial instruments set out in points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and to whom Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field did not apply on 31 December 2006") from large exposures requirements and from own funds requirements respectively. Both exemptions expire on 31 December 2017. This 'sunset clause' was originally included in the CRR in order to allow time for regulators to determine a prudential regulation adapted to the risk profile of commodity dealers. 1 To this end, Articles 493(2) and 498(2) of the CRR mandate the Commission to prepare reports by the end of 2015. On the basis of those reports, the Commission may decide to submit proposals to amend the CRR. The Commission is also required to submit, within the same deadline, a report on an appropriate regime for the prudential supervision of investment firms in general. Here again, the report may be followed by a Commission proposal. Since the abovementioned reports are related, the Commission decided to undertake a single review (henceforth 'investment firms review') and prepare a single report on the above topics. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure the development of a coherent prudential framework for all types of investment firms. The work on the investment firms review is already underway: the Commission asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to provide technical advice on the matter. The advice is expected by the end of September 2015. The Commission will then use the advice to prepare its own report. Should the Commission decide to change the existing prudential framework for investment firms, the report will detail the next steps of the investment firms review and the broad outline of the changes the Commission is contemplating. The investment firms review is a complex project which will not be completed by the end of this year. It is therefore highly improbable that any legislation that may result from this review can be prepared, adopted and applied before the current exemptions expire (i.e. before the end of 2017). This has implications for commodity dealers: if no specific prudential framework that may result from the investment firm review would be in place by then, they would be subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements starting from 1 January 2018. There are two problems related to this scenario. First, commodity dealers would become subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements without a conscious (and informed) decision that such treatment is indeed the most appropriate one for them. Second, assuming that the investment firm review would result in a tailor-made prudential framework for commodity dealers, they would be deprived of a stable regulatory framework. They would move from the current treatment where they are exempted from large exposures and own funds requirements, to a temporary treatment comprising the full CRR/CRD requirements, and eventually to the aforementioned tailor-made framework within a very short period of time (one to two years). This is not a desirable outcome. To prevent that this situation arises it is therefore opportune to extend the existing exemptions laid down in the CRR. The extension should take into account the amount of time that will be necessary to conclude the investment firms review and to prepare, adopt and apply any legislation that may result from that review.
Revised version (Article 150 Conditions for permanent partial use):
1. Where institutions have received the prior permission of the competent authorities, institutions permitted to use the IRB Approach in the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts for one or more exposure classes may apply the Standardised Approach for the following exposures: (a) the exposure class laid down in Article 147(2)(a), where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome for the institution to implement a rating system for these counterparties; (b) the exposure class laid down in Article 147(2)(b), where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome for the institution to implement a rating system for these counterparties; (c) exposures in non-significant business units as well as exposure classes or types of exposures that are immaterial in terms of size and perceived risk profile; (d) exposures to central governments and central banks of the Member States and their regional governments, local authorities, administrative bodies and public sector entities provided that: (i) there is no difference in risk between the exposures to that central government and central bank and those other exposures because of specific public arrangements; and (ii) exposures to the central government and central bank are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 114(2) or (4) or Article 495(2); (e) exposures of an institution to a counterparty which is its parent undertaking, its subsidiary or a subsidiary of its parent undertaking provided that the counterparty is an institution or a financial holding company, mixed financial holding company, financial institution, asset management company or ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements or an undertaking linked by a relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC; (f) exposures between institutions which meet the requirements set out in Article 113(7); (g) equity exposures to entities whose credit obligations are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Chapter 2 including those publicly sponsored entities where a 0 % risk weight can be applied; (h) equity exposures incurred under legislative programmes to promote specified sectors of the economy that provide significant subsidies for the investment to the institution and involve some form of government oversight and restrictions on the equity investments where such exposures may in aggregate be excluded from the IRB Approach only up to a limit of 10 % of own funds; (i) the exposures identified in Article 119(4) meeting the conditions specified therein; (j) State and State-reinsured guarantees referred to in Article 215(2). The competent authorities shall permit the application of Standardised Approach for equity exposures referred to in points (g) and (h) of the first subparagraph which have been permitted for that treatment in other Member States. EBA shall publish on its website and regularly update a list of the exposures referred to in those points to be treated according to the Standardised Approach. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the equity exposure class of an institution shall be material if their aggregate value, excluding equity exposures incurred under legislative programmes as referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1, exceeds on average over the preceding year 10 % of the own funds of the institution. Where the number of those equity exposures is less than 10 individual holdings, that threshold shall be 5 % of the own funds of the institution. 3. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the conditions of application of points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 4. EBA shall issue guidelines on the application of point (d) of paragraph 1 in 2018, recommending limits in terms of a percentage of total balance sheet and/or risk weighted assets to be calculated in accordance with the Standardised Approach. Those guidelines shall be adopted in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 151 Treatment by exposure class
1. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for exposures belonging to one of the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (e) and (g) of 147(2) shall, unless deducted from own funds, be calculated in accordance with Sub-section 2 except where those exposures are deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 items, Additional Tier 1 items or Tier 2 items. 2. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for dilution risk for purchased receivables shall be calculated in accordance with Article 157. Where an institution has full recourse to the seller of purchased receivables for default risk and for dilution risk, the provisions of this Article and Article 152 and Article 158(1) to (4) in relation to purchased receivables shall not apply and the exposure shall be treated as a collateralised exposure. 3. The calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk and dilution risk shall be based on the relevant parameters associated with the exposure in question. These shall include PD, LGD, maturity (hereinafter referred to as ‘M’) and exposure value of the exposure. PD and LGD may be considered separately or jointly, in accordance with Section 4. 4. Institutions shall calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for all exposures belonging to the exposure class ‘equity’ referred to in point (e) of Article 147(2) in accordance with Article 155. Institutions may use the approaches set out in Article 155(3) and (4) where they have received the prior permission of the competent authorities. Competent authorities shall grant permission for an institution to use the internal models approach set out in Article 155(4) provided that the institution meets the requirements set out in Sub-section 4 of Section 6. 5. The calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for specialised lending exposures may be calculated in accordance with Article 153(5). 6. For exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 147(2), institutions shall provide their own estimates of PDs in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 7. For exposures belonging to the exposure class referred to in point (d) of Article 147(2), institutions shall provide own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 8. For exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (c) of Article 147(2), institutions shall apply the LGD values set out in Article 161(1), and the conversion factors set out in Article 166(8)(a) to (d), unless it has been permitted to use its own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors for those exposure classes in accordance with paragraph 9. 9. For all exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (c) of Article 147(2), the competent authority shall permit institutions to use own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 10. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for securitised exposures and for exposures belonging to the exposure class referred to in point (f) of Article 147(2) shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter 5.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 64 8 /2012 1 (the European Market Infrastructure Regulation or “EMIR”) regulates derivatives transactions, including measures to limit their risks through clearing in central counterparties (CCPs). 2 CCPs take on the risks faced by the parties to a trade, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. By doing so, they increase market transparency and efficiency and reduce the risks in financial markets, especially for derivatives . EMIR was adopted in the wake of the 2008/2009 financial crisis to promote financial stability and to make markets more transparent, more standardised, and thus safer. EMIR requires that derivatives transactions are reported to ensure market transparency for regulators and supervisors and that their risks are appropriately mitigated through central clearing at a CCP or by exchanging collateral, known as ‘margin’, in bilateral transactions. CCPs, and the risks they manage, have grown considerably since the adoption of EMIR. In 2017, the Commission published two legislative proposals amending EMIR, both of which were adopted by the co-legislators in 2019. EMIR REFIT 3 recalibrated some of the requirements under EMIR to ensure their proportionality, while ensuring financial stability. Acknowledging the emerging issues related to the increasing concentration of risks in CCPs, in particular third-country CCPs, EMIR 2.2 4 revised the supervisory framework and set out a process for assessing the systemic nature of third-country CCPs by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the central banks of issue. EMIR is complemented by the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation 5 , adopted in 2020, 6 to prepare for the unlikely – though massively impactful - event that an EU CCP faces severe financial distress. 7 Whilst EMIR has established a robust framework for central clearing, certain areas of the current supervisory framework have proven overly complex. This limits EU CCPs’ ability to attract business both within the EU and internationally. The supervisory approval procedures for launching new clearing services and activities by EU CCPs, as well as changes in their risk models, are in many cases unnecessarily long and burdensome. The current rules are there to ensure the safety and soundness of EU CCPs, but this could be done in many ways and the existing processes have been challenged as too slow and, at times, disproportionate in light of the envisaged change. It should not take years for approving a new product, and changes to risk models need to be swift to reflect changing market and economic circumstances. Delays in approvals increase costs and reduce the attractiveness of EU CCPs, and consequently of the EU as a place to do business. The proposal aims at mitigating these obstacles in order to foster modern and competitive CCPs in the EU that can attract business. EMIR provides a comprehensive and robust prudential framework for CCPs and the newly adopted CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation further strengthens the soundness of EU CCPs. This proposal aims for the EU to continue to base the evolution of its central clearing ecosystem on the strength of its rules and supervision. Robust and safe CCPs enhance the trust of the financial system and crucially support the liquidity of key markets. A safe, robust and resilient clearing ecosystem is a pre-condition for it to grow further. The EU central clearing ecosystem should enable EU firms to hedge their risks efficiently and safely, while at the same time safeguarding the wider financial stability. In this way, central clearing will support the EU economy. This proposal aims to put firms in a better position by being able to predict the liquidity needs associated with central clearing. A competitive and efficient EU clearing ecosystem will increase central clearing activities, but central clearing also entails risks by centralising transactions in a few CCPs being financially systemically important. Hence, those risks must be appropriately managed by CCPs and CCPs must continue to be thoroughly supervised both at the national and the wider EU level. Therefore, this proposal aims at ensuring a robust and joined-up supervision, building on the supervisory system the EU currently has in place. In addition, since 2017, concerns have been repeatedly expressed about the ongoing risks to the EU financial stability arising from the excessive concentration of clearing in some third-country CCPs, notably in a stress scenario. H igh-risk but low-probability events can happen, and the EU must be prepared to face them 8 . While EU CCPs have generally proven resilient, experience has shown that the EU clearing ecosystem can be made stronger, to the benefit of financial stability. However, open strategic autonomy also means that the EU needs to safeguard itself against the financial stability risks which can arise when EU market participants are excessively reliant on third-country entities, as this can be a source of vulnerabilit y . Therefore, this proposal aims at making the equivalence framework in EMIR more proportionate and to better tailor cooperation with foreign supervisors taking into account the risks posed by CCPs based in third countries – and without compromising on the need for third countries to have sound rules in place . It is also proposed that the equivalence procedure is made simpler when the risks involved in central clearing in a third country are particularly low. In addition, this proposal seeks to build up the EU’s central clearing capacity and thereby increase liquidity at EU CCPs with the aim to reduce the risks posed to the EU financial stability by excessive exposures to third-country CCPs. Therefore, this proposal requires all market participants subject to a clearing obligation, to hold active accounts at EU CCPs for clearing products that have been identified by ESMA as of substantial systemic importance for the EU financial stability. T his proposal is complemented by a proposal for a Directive introducing a limited number of changes to Directive 2013/36/EU 9 (Capital Requirements Directive or ‘CRD’), Directive (EU) 2019/2034 10 (Investment Firms Directive or ‘IFD’) and Directive 2009/65/EU 11 (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive or ‘UCITS Directive’) as regards the treatment of concentration risk towards CCPs and the counterparty risk on centrally cleared derivative transactions. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the objectives of this EMIR review are achieved as well as to assure coherence. The two proposals should therefore be read in conjunction.
Revised version (Article 151 Treatment by exposure class):
1. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for exposures belonging to one of the exposure classes referred to in Article 147(2), points (a) to (e) and point (g), shall, unless those exposures are deducted from own funds or are subject to the treatment set out in Article 72e(5), first subparagraph, be calculated in accordance with Sub-section 2. 2. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for dilution risk for purchased receivables shall be calculated in accordance with Article 157. Where an institution has full recourse to the seller of purchased receivables for default risk and for dilution risk, the provisions of this Article and Article 152 and Article 158(1) to (4) in relation to purchased receivables shall not apply and the exposure shall be treated as a collateralised exposure. 3. The calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk and dilution risk shall be based on the relevant parameters associated with the exposure in question. These shall include PD, LGD, maturity (hereinafter referred to as ‘M’) and exposure value of the exposure. PD and LGD may be considered separately or jointly, in accordance with Section 4. 4. Institutions shall calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for all exposures belonging to the exposure class ‘equity’ referred to in point (e) of Article 147(2) in accordance with Article 155. Institutions may use the approaches set out in Article 155(3) and (4) where they have received the prior permission of the competent authorities. Competent authorities shall grant permission for an institution to use the internal models approach set out in Article 155(4) provided that the institution meets the requirements set out in Sub-section 4 of Section 6. 5. The calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts for credit risk for specialised lending exposures may be calculated in accordance with Article 153(5). 6. For exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 147(2), institutions shall provide their own estimates of PDs in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 7. For exposures belonging to the exposure class referred to in point (d) of Article 147(2), institutions shall provide own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 8. For exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (c) of Article 147(2), institutions shall apply the LGD values set out in Article 161(1), and the conversion factors set out in Article 166(8)(a) to (d), unless it has been permitted to use its own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors for those exposure classes in accordance with paragraph 9. 9. For all exposures belonging to the exposure classes referred to in points (a) to (c) of Article 147(2), the competent authority shall permit institutions to use own estimates of LGDs and conversion factors in accordance with Article 143 and Section 6. 10. The risk-weighted exposure amounts for securitised exposures and for exposures belonging to the exposure class referred to in point (f) of Article 147(2) shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter 5.
Article 152 Treatment of exposures in the form of units or shares in CIUs
1. Where exposures in the form of units or shares in CIUs meet the criteria set out in Article 132(3) and the institution is aware of all or parts of the underlying exposures of the CIU, the institution shall look through to those underlying exposures in order to calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts in accordance with the methods set out in this Chapter. Where an underlying exposure of the CIU is itself another exposure in the form of units or shares in another CIU, the first institution shall also look through to the underlying exposures of the other CIU. 2. Where the institution does not meet the conditions for using the methods set out in this Chapter for all or parts of the underlying exposures of the CIU, risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts shall be calculated in accordance with the following approaches: (a) for exposures belonging to the ‘equity’ exposure class referred to in Article 147(2)(e), institutions shall apply the simple risk-weight approach set out in Article 155(2); (b) for all other underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1, institutions shall apply the Standardised Approach laid down in Chapter 2, subject to the following: (i) for exposures subject to a specific risk weight for unrated exposures or subject to the credit quality step yielding the highest risk weight for a given exposure class, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of two but shall not be higher than 1 250 %; (ii) for all other exposures, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of 1,1 and shall be subject to a minimum of 5 %. (b) for all other underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1, institutions shall apply the Standardised Approach laid down in Chapter 2, subject to the following: (i) for exposures subject to a specific risk weight for unrated exposures or subject to the credit quality step yielding the highest risk weight for a given exposure class, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of two but shall not be higher than 1 250 %; (ii) for all other exposures, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of 1,1 and shall be subject to a minimum of 5 %. Where, for the purposes of point (a), the institution is unable to differentiate between private equity, exchange-traded and other equity exposures, it shall treat the exposures concerned as other equity exposures. Where those exposures, taken together with the institution's direct exposures in that exposure class, are not material within the meaning of Article 150(2), Article 150(1) may be applied subject to the permission of the competent authorities. 3. Where exposures in the form of units or shares in a CIU do not meet the criteria set out in Article 132(3), or where the institution is not aware of all of the underlying exposures of the CIU or of the underlying exposures of a unit or share in a CIU which is itself an underlying exposure of the CIU, the institution shall look through to those underlying exposures and calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts in accordance with the simple risk-weight approach set out in Article 155(2). Where the institution is unable to differentiate between private equity, exchange-traded and other equity exposures, it shall treat the exposures concerned as other equity exposures. It shall assign non equity exposures to the other equity class. 4. Alternatively to the method described in paragraph 3, institutions may calculate themselves or may rely on the following third parties to calculate and report the average risk-weighted exposure amounts based on the CIU's underlying exposures in accordance with the approaches referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 for the following: (a) the depository institution or financial institution of the CIU provided that the CIU exclusively invests in securities and deposits all securities at this depository institution or financial institution; (b) for other CIUs, the CIU management company, provided that the CIU management company meets the criteria set out in Article 132(3)(a). The correctness of the calculation shall be confirmed by an external auditor. 5. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions according to which competent authorities may permit institutions to use the Standardised Approach referred to in Article 150(1) under point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 June 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Sub-Section 2 Calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The term 'commodity dealer' covers a wide spectrum of actors in energy and commodity markets: some trade exclusively in commodity derivative contracts and resemble investment firms in terms of functions and risks, whereas others trade commodity derivatives purely as an ancillary activity to commodities production. The requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the 'Capital Requirements Regulation' or 'CRR') and in Directive 2013/36/EU (the 'Capital Requirements Directive' or 'CRD') apply to both credit institutions and investment firms. The prudential regime applicable to investment firms is derived from that imposed on credit institutions, adapted as a function of the investment services that they provide. Articles 493(1) and 498(1) of the CRR exempt commodity dealers ("investment firms whose main business consists exclusively of the provision of investment services or activities in relation to the financial instruments set out in points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and to whom Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field did not apply on 31 December 2006") from large exposures requirements and from own funds requirements respectively. Both exemptions expire on 31 December 2017. This 'sunset clause' was originally included in the CRR in order to allow time for regulators to determine a prudential regulation adapted to the risk profile of commodity dealers. 1 To this end, Articles 493(2) and 498(2) of the CRR mandate the Commission to prepare reports by the end of 2015. On the basis of those reports, the Commission may decide to submit proposals to amend the CRR. The Commission is also required to submit, within the same deadline, a report on an appropriate regime for the prudential supervision of investment firms in general. Here again, the report may be followed by a Commission proposal. Since the abovementioned reports are related, the Commission decided to undertake a single review (henceforth 'investment firms review') and prepare a single report on the above topics. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure the development of a coherent prudential framework for all types of investment firms. The work on the investment firms review is already underway: the Commission asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to provide technical advice on the matter. The advice is expected by the end of September 2015. The Commission will then use the advice to prepare its own report. Should the Commission decide to change the existing prudential framework for investment firms, the report will detail the next steps of the investment firms review and the broad outline of the changes the Commission is contemplating. The investment firms review is a complex project which will not be completed by the end of this year. It is therefore highly improbable that any legislation that may result from this review can be prepared, adopted and applied before the current exemptions expire (i.e. before the end of 2017). This has implications for commodity dealers: if no specific prudential framework that may result from the investment firm review would be in place by then, they would be subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements starting from 1 January 2018. There are two problems related to this scenario. First, commodity dealers would become subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements without a conscious (and informed) decision that such treatment is indeed the most appropriate one for them. Second, assuming that the investment firm review would result in a tailor-made prudential framework for commodity dealers, they would be deprived of a stable regulatory framework. They would move from the current treatment where they are exempted from large exposures and own funds requirements, to a temporary treatment comprising the full CRR/CRD requirements, and eventually to the aforementioned tailor-made framework within a very short period of time (one to two years). This is not a desirable outcome. To prevent that this situation arises it is therefore opportune to extend the existing exemptions laid down in the CRR. The extension should take into account the amount of time that will be necessary to conclude the investment firms review and to prepare, adopt and apply any legislation that may result from that review.
Revised version (Article 152 Treatment of exposures in the form of units or shares in CIUs):
1. Where exposures in the form of units or shares in CIUs meet the criteria set out in Article 132(3) and the institution is aware of all or parts of the underlying exposures of the CIU, the institution shall look through to those underlying exposures in order to calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts in accordance with the methods set out in this Chapter. Where an underlying exposure of the CIU is itself another exposure in the form of units or shares in another CIU, the first institution shall also look through to the underlying exposures of the other CIU. 2. Where the institution does not meet the conditions for using the methods set out in this Chapter for all or parts of the underlying exposures of the CIU, risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts shall be calculated in accordance with the following approaches: (a) for exposures belonging to the ‘equity’ exposure class referred to in Article 147(2)(e), institutions shall apply the simple risk-weight approach set out in Article 155(2); (b) for all other underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1, institutions shall apply the Standardised Approach laid down in Chapter 2, subject to the following: (i) for exposures subject to a specific risk weight for unrated exposures or subject to the credit quality step yielding the highest risk weight for a given exposure class, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of two but shall not be higher than 1 250 %; (ii) for all other exposures, the risk weight shall be multiplied by a factor of 1,1 and shall be subject to a minimum of 5 %. Where, for the purposes of point (a), the institution is unable to differentiate between private equity, exchange-traded and other equity exposures, it shall treat the exposures concerned as other equity exposures. Where those exposures, taken together with the institution's direct exposures in that exposure class, are not material within the meaning of Article 150(2), Article 150(1) may be applied subject to the permission of the competent authorities. 3. Where exposures in the form of units or shares in a CIU do not meet the criteria set out in Article 132(3), or where the institution is not aware of all of the underlying exposures of the CIU or of the underlying exposures of a unit or share in a CIU which is itself an underlying exposure of the CIU, the institution shall look through to those underlying exposures and calculate risk-weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts in accordance with the simple risk-weight approach set out in Article 155(2). Where the institution is unable to differentiate between private equity, exchange-traded and other equity exposures, it shall treat the exposures concerned as other equity exposures. It shall assign non equity exposures to the other equity class. 4. Alternatively to the method described in paragraph 3, institutions may calculate themselves or may rely on the following third parties to calculate and report the average risk-weighted exposure amounts based on the CIU's underlying exposures in accordance with the approaches referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 for the following: (a) the depository institution or financial institution of the CIU provided that the CIU exclusively invests in securities and deposits all securities at this depository institution or financial institution; (b) for other CIUs, the CIU management company, provided that the CIU management company meets the criteria set out in Article 132(3)(a). The correctness of the calculation shall be confirmed by an external auditor. 5. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions according to which competent authorities may permit institutions to use the Standardised Approach referred to in Article 150(1) under point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 June 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Sub-Section 2 Calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk
Article 153 Risk-weighted exposure amounts for exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks
1. Subject to the application of the specific treatments laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the risk-weighted exposure amounts for exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks shall be calculated according to the following formulae: Risk – weighted exposure amount = RW · exposure value where the risk weight RW is defined as (i) if PD = 0, RW shall be 0; (ii) if PD = 1, i.e., for defaulted exposures: — where institutions apply the LGD values set out in Article 161(1), RW shall be 0; — where institutions use own estimates of LGDs, RW shall be ; where the expected loss best estimate (hereinafter referred to as ‘EL BE ’) shall be the institution's best estimate of expected loss for the defaulted exposure in accordance with Article 181(1)(h); (ii) if PD = 1, i.e., for defaulted exposures: — where institutions apply the LGD values set out in Article 161(1), RW shall be 0; — where institutions use own estimates of LGDs, RW shall be ; where the expected loss best estimate (hereinafter referred to as ‘EL BE ’) shall be the institution's best estimate of expected loss for the defaulted exposure in accordance with Article 181(1)(h); (iii) if 0 < PD < 1 where: N(x) = the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x); G(Z) = denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value x such that N(x) = z) R = denotes the coefficient of correlation, is defined as b = the maturity adjustment factor, which is defined as . (iii) if 0 < PD < 1 where: N(x) = the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x); N(x) = the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x); G(Z) = denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value x such that N(x) = z) G(Z) denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value x such that N(x) = z) R = denotes the coefficient of correlation, is defined as denotes the coefficient of correlation, is defined as b = the maturity adjustment factor, which is defined as . the maturity adjustment factor, which is defined as 2. For all exposures to large financial sector entities, the co-efficient of correlation of paragraph 1(iii) is multiplied by 1,25. For all exposures to unregulated financial sector entities, the coefficients of correlation set out in paragraph 1(iii) and paragraph 4, as relevant, are multiplied by 1,25. 3. The risk-weighted exposure amount for each exposure which meets the requirements set out in Articles 202 and 217 may be adjusted in accordance with the following formula: Risk – weighted exposure amount = RW · exposure value · (0.15 + 160 · PD pp ) PD pp = PD of the protection provider. PD pp PD of the protection provider. RW shall be calculated using the relevant risk weight formula set out in point 1 for the exposure, the PD of the obligor and the LGD of a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider. The maturity factor (b) shall be calculated using the lower of the PD of the protection provider and the PD of the obligor. 4. For exposures to companies where the total annual sales for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part is less than EUR 50 million, institutions may use the following correlation formula in paragraph 1 (iii) for the calculation of risk weights for corporate exposures. In this formula S is expressed as total annual sales in millions of euro with EUR 5 million ≤ S ≤ EUR 50 million. Reported sales of less than EUR 5 million shall be treated as if they were equivalent to EUR 5 million. For purchased receivables the total annual sales shall be the weighted average by individual exposures of the pool. Institutions shall substitute total assets of the consolidated group for total annual sales when total annual sales are not a meaningful indicator of firm size and total assets are a more meaningful indicator than total annual sales. 5. For specialised lending exposures in respect of which an institution is not able to estimate PDs or the institutions' PD estimates do not meet the requirements set out in Section 6, the institution shall assign risk weights to these exposures in accordance with Table 1, as follows: Table 1 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Table 1 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Less than 2,5 years 50 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years In assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures institutions shall take into account the following factors: financial strength, political and legal environment, transaction and/or asset characteristics, strength of the sponsor and developer, including any public private partnership income stream, and security package. 6. For their purchased corporate receivables institutions shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 184. For purchased corporate receivables that comply in addition with the conditions set out in Article 154(5), and where it would be unduly burdensome for an institution to use the risk quantification standards for corporate exposures as set out in Section 6 for these receivables, the risk quantification standards for retail exposures as set out in Section 6 may be used. 7. For purchased corporate receivables, refundable purchase discounts, collateral or partial guarantees that provide first-loss protection for default losses, dilution losses, or both, may be treated as first-loss positions under the IRB securitisation framework. 8. Where an institution provides credit protection for a number of exposures under terms that the nth default among the exposures shall trigger payment and that this credit event shall terminate the contract, if the product has an external credit assessment from an ECAI the risk weights set out in Chapter 5 shall be applied. If the product is not rated by an ECAI, the risk weights of the exposures included in the basket will be aggregated, excluding n-1 exposures where the sum of the expected loss amount multiplied by 12,5 and the risk-weighted exposure amount shall not exceed the nominal amount of the protection provided by the credit derivative multiplied by 12,5. The n-1 exposures to be excluded from the aggregation shall be determined on the basis that they shall include those exposures each of which produces a lower risk-weighted exposure amount than the risk-weighted exposure amount of any of the exposures included in the aggregation. A 1 250 % risk weight shall apply to positions in a basket for which an institution cannot determine the risk-weight under the IRB Approach. 9. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify how institutions shall take into account the factors referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 5 when assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The term 'commodity dealer' covers a wide spectrum of actors in energy and commodity markets: some trade exclusively in commodity derivative contracts and resemble investment firms in terms of functions and risks, whereas others trade commodity derivatives purely as an ancillary activity to commodities production. The requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the 'Capital Requirements Regulation' or 'CRR') and in Directive 2013/36/EU (the 'Capital Requirements Directive' or 'CRD') apply to both credit institutions and investment firms. The prudential regime applicable to investment firms is derived from that imposed on credit institutions, adapted as a function of the investment services that they provide. Articles 493(1) and 498(1) of the CRR exempt commodity dealers ("investment firms whose main business consists exclusively of the provision of investment services or activities in relation to the financial instruments set out in points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC and to whom Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field did not apply on 31 December 2006") from large exposures requirements and from own funds requirements respectively. Both exemptions expire on 31 December 2017. This 'sunset clause' was originally included in the CRR in order to allow time for regulators to determine a prudential regulation adapted to the risk profile of commodity dealers. 1 To this end, Articles 493(2) and 498(2) of the CRR mandate the Commission to prepare reports by the end of 2015. On the basis of those reports, the Commission may decide to submit proposals to amend the CRR. The Commission is also required to submit, within the same deadline, a report on an appropriate regime for the prudential supervision of investment firms in general. Here again, the report may be followed by a Commission proposal. Since the abovementioned reports are related, the Commission decided to undertake a single review (henceforth 'investment firms review') and prepare a single report on the above topics. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure the development of a coherent prudential framework for all types of investment firms. The work on the investment firms review is already underway: the Commission asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to provide technical advice on the matter. The advice is expected by the end of September 2015. The Commission will then use the advice to prepare its own report. Should the Commission decide to change the existing prudential framework for investment firms, the report will detail the next steps of the investment firms review and the broad outline of the changes the Commission is contemplating. The investment firms review is a complex project which will not be completed by the end of this year. It is therefore highly improbable that any legislation that may result from this review can be prepared, adopted and applied before the current exemptions expire (i.e. before the end of 2017). This has implications for commodity dealers: if no specific prudential framework that may result from the investment firm review would be in place by then, they would be subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements starting from 1 January 2018. There are two problems related to this scenario. First, commodity dealers would become subject to the full CRR/CRD requirements without a conscious (and informed) decision that such treatment is indeed the most appropriate one for them. Second, assuming that the investment firm review would result in a tailor-made prudential framework for commodity dealers, they would be deprived of a stable regulatory framework. They would move from the current treatment where they are exempted from large exposures and own funds requirements, to a temporary treatment comprising the full CRR/CRD requirements, and eventually to the aforementioned tailor-made framework within a very short period of time (one to two years). This is not a desirable outcome. To prevent that this situation arises it is therefore opportune to extend the existing exemptions laid down in the CRR. The extension should take into account the amount of time that will be necessary to conclude the investment firms review and to prepare, adopt and apply any legislation that may result from that review.
Revised version (Article 153 Risk-weighted exposure amounts for exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks):
1. Subject to the application of the specific treatments laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the risk-weighted exposure amounts for exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks shall be calculated according to the following formulae: Risk – weighted exposure amount = RW · exposure value where the risk weight RW is defined as (i) if PD = 0, RW shall be 0; (ii) if PD = 1, i.e., for defaulted exposures: — where institutions apply the LGD values set out in Article 161(1), RW shall be 0; — where institutions use own estimates of LGDs, RW shall be ; where the expected loss best estimate (hereinafter referred to as ‘EL BE ’) shall be the institution's best estimate of expected loss for the defaulted exposure in accordance with Article 181(1)(h); (iii) if 0 < PD < 1 where: N(x) = the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x); N(x) = the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x); G(Z) = denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value x such that N(x) = z) G(Z) denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value x such that N(x) = z) R = denotes the coefficient of correlation, is defined as denotes the coefficient of correlation, is defined as b = the maturity adjustment factor, which is defined as . the maturity adjustment factor, which is defined as 2. For all exposures to large financial sector entities, the co-efficient of correlation of paragraph 1(iii) is multiplied by 1,25. For all exposures to unregulated financial sector entities, the coefficients of correlation set out in paragraph 1(iii) and paragraph 4, as relevant, are multiplied by 1,25. 3. The risk-weighted exposure amount for each exposure which meets the requirements set out in Articles 202 and 217 may be adjusted in accordance with the following formula: Risk – weighted exposure amount = RW · exposure value · (0.15 + 160 · PD pp ) PD pp = PD of the protection provider. PD pp PD of the protection provider. RW shall be calculated using the relevant risk weight formula set out in point 1 for the exposure, the PD of the obligor and the LGD of a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider. The maturity factor (b) shall be calculated using the lower of the PD of the protection provider and the PD of the obligor. 4. For exposures to companies where the total annual sales for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part is less than EUR 50 million, institutions may use the following correlation formula in paragraph 1 (iii) for the calculation of risk weights for corporate exposures. In this formula S is expressed as total annual sales in millions of euro with EUR 5 million ≤ S ≤ EUR 50 million. Reported sales of less than EUR 5 million shall be treated as if they were equivalent to EUR 5 million. For purchased receivables the total annual sales shall be the weighted average by individual exposures of the pool. Institutions shall substitute total assets of the consolidated group for total annual sales when total annual sales are not a meaningful indicator of firm size and total assets are a more meaningful indicator than total annual sales. 5. For specialised lending exposures in respect of which an institution is not able to estimate PDs or the institutions' PD estimates do not meet the requirements set out in Section 6, the institution shall assign risk weights to these exposures in accordance with Table 1, as follows: Table 1 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Table 1 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Remaining Maturity Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Less than 2,5 years 50 % 70 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Less than 2,5 years 50 % Equal or more than 2,5 years 70 % 90 % 115 % 250 % 0 % Equal or more than 2,5 years In assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures institutions shall take into account the following factors: financial strength, political and legal environment, transaction and/or asset characteristics, strength of the sponsor and developer, including any public private partnership income stream, and security package. 6. For their purchased corporate receivables institutions shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 184. For purchased corporate receivables that comply in addition with the conditions set out in Article 154(5), and where it would be unduly burdensome for an institution to use the risk quantification standards for corporate exposures as set out in Section 6 for these receivables, the risk quantification standards for retail exposures as set out in Section 6 may be used. 7. For purchased corporate receivables, refundable purchase discounts, collateral or partial guarantees that provide first-loss protection for default losses, dilution losses, or both, may be treated as first-loss positions under the IRB securitisation framework. 8. Where an institution provides credit protection for a number of exposures under terms that the nth default among the exposures shall trigger payment and that this credit event shall terminate the contract, if the product has an external credit assessment from an ECAI the risk weights set out in Chapter 5 shall be applied. If the product is not rated by an ECAI, the risk weights of the exposures included in the basket will be aggregated, excluding n-1 exposures where the sum of the expected loss amount multiplied by 12,5 and the risk-weighted exposure amount shall not exceed the nominal amount of the protection provided by the credit derivative multiplied by 12,5. The n-1 exposures to be excluded from the aggregation shall be determined on the basis that they shall include those exposures each of which produces a lower risk-weighted exposure amount than the risk-weighted exposure amount of any of the exposures included in the aggregation. A 1 250 % risk weight shall apply to positions in a basket for which an institution cannot determine the risk-weight under the IRB Approach. 9. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify how institutions shall take into account the factors referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 5 when assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.