Cebs releases report mapping EU supervisory aims
EU committee maps powers and objectives of present supervision across Europe
LONDON - The Committee of European Banking Supervisors (Cebs) has published its report mapping in detail the objectives, powers and use of sanctions by supervisors across the European Union (EU).
The report is the result of two requests by the European Commission in March and September 2008, in response to the December 2007 Ecofin Council. The paper provides insight into the Commission's options for supervisory reform, especially to develop early intervention tools to crisis-manage collapsing banks.
Cebs also identifies areas for its own priorities for future supervisory convergence and the legal boundaries currently in place. Key discrepancies between supervisory powers across borders are underlined in crisis intervention powers and in the sanctions that can be brought to bear against banks caught in non-compliance.
Giovanni Carrosio, vice-chairman of Cebs, said: "In general, if supervisors appear well equipped with enforcement powers in going concern situations, substantial differences do crop up in the range of intervention measures available for ailing but solvent banks. This relates both to the measures available as well as the conditions under which these measures can be taken. In particular, powers towards the persons who effectively direct the business and towards shareholders appear rather fragmented. As for reorganisation and winding-up procedures, the respective roles of supervisory and judicial authorities vary significantly although a majority of supervisors at least play a role in such procedures."
Click here to read the report.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say
Barr defends easing of Basel III endgame proposal
Fed’s top regulator says he will stay and finish the package, is comfortable with capital impact
Bank of England to review UK clearing rules
Broader collateral set and greater margin transparency could be adopted from Emir 3.0, but not active accounts requirement
The wisdom of Oz? Why Australia is phasing out AT1s
Analysts think Australian banks will transition smoothly, but other countries unlikely to follow
EU trade repository matching disrupted by Emir overhaul
Some say problem affecting derivatives reporting has been resolved, but others find it persists
Barclays and HSBC opt for FRTB internal models
However, UK pair unlikely to chase approval in time for Basel III go-live in January 2026
Foreign banks want level playing field in US Basel III redraft
IHCs say capital charges for op risk and inter-affiliate trades out of line with US-based peers