Page 29 - 2013.2802_Web1

Version HTML de base

2 0 1 2 a n n u a l r e p o r t
27
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
0
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 4: List of EBA ‘closely monitored’ supervisory colleges — distribution per home country
the legal requirement of the joint risk as-
sessment and joint decision on the level of
risk-based capital adequacy on a consoli-
dated and solo level (joint risk assessment
and decisions (JRAD)). The EBA interacted
with colleges to ensure that any shortfalls
experienced in meeting their legal and
regulatory requirements were addressed
and guidance provided as soon as possible.
In participating and in having close dialogue
with the colleges, the EBA staff have a broad
view which enables the EBA to monitor and
oversee the effective functioning of colleges
and their compliance with both legal require-
ments and the EBA action plan. The EBA aims
to bring its insight to the benefit of all col-
leges through providing regular direct feed-
back to the consolidating supervisors and
also through its policy work. For example, in
2012, after noticing deficiencies in the way
joint decisions on institution-specific pruden-
tial requirements are reached and articulated,
a ‘Good practices’ paper was developed and
communicated to supervisors suggesting
improvements both in the process of reach-
ing a joint decision and in their articulation,
communication and application. With such
documents the EBA promotes convergence
of practices across the colleges and will con-
tinue to do this going forward.
Findings from participation in the work of
colleges of supervisors in 2012 indicate that
significant improvements have been reached
specifically in information sharing and inte-
grated risk assessment cycles where both
consolidating and host supervisors dedicate
substantial resources to the colleges’ work.
Additionally in a small but increasing number
of colleges, examples of joint work, including
but not limited to on-site inspections, were
noted. In general, supervisory activities per-
formed within the college framework appear
to have increased compared to 2011 (partly
attributed to the emphasis placed on colleges
during the EBA capital exercise). Nonethe-
less, stressed conditions still have a negative
effect on the functioning of colleges whereby
information exchange often retreats to within
national borders, and the framework for infor-
mation sharing and supervision of cross-bor-
der banking entities becomes less effective.
Additionally, the EBA engaged with banking
supervisors of cross-border entities through
the organisation of its second seminar on
colleges. This seminar engaged heavily with
supervisors to focus on the main challenges
they face, especially in reaching and articulat-
ing the joint decision on institution-specific
prudential requirements, interaction between
global and European colleges, crisis manage-
ment and future regulatory changes. The ul-
timate aim of such regular training sessions
is to foster a common supervisory culture
and promote consistency across the colleges,
through positive direct engagement with super-
visors of colleges involved in the seminar.
Supervisory college,
76
CMG college,
22
Grand total,
98
Figure 5: Number of college meetings attended by EBA staff —
distribution per type of college