The EACB welcomes the SRB initiative to enhance the transparency of supervisory policies’ development with this operational guidance for banks on resolvability self-assessment. Having a clearer view of the supervisory expectations in this area will foster a more conducive dialogue with the authority and help structuring processes internally. Although we recognise the SRB's efforts to put in place a clear and harmonised framework across the sector, we would like to emphasize that the current proposal needs to be reviewed on several major aspects.
The current text shows several ambiguities and outlines expectations that might reveal particularly challenging to implement. In particular, the operational guidance presents new and revised requirements that are not adequately defined in the text and are difficult to demonstrate or assess in practice. For example, the SRB has expressed its negative view regarding issuing MREL eligible liabilities and own funds (other than CET1) to retail customers when it achieved a “significant concentration” without hinting at any indicative measure or definition of the term. Similar considerations might be made also for the definition of “material liabilities".
The current “self-assessment template” leaves limited room for banks to provide meaningful comments on the content. We would envisage the possibility of including an additional column to ensure the possibility of adding valuable information that is not contemplated in the other columns. In addition, the SRB might consider the possibility to complement the Excel-template with a word/pdf document to synthetise the most relevant findings and develop the information that did not find its proper place in the new template but contributes to a good understanding of the bank's level of resolvability. Regarding specific columns, column H of the template outlines activities and timeframes for achieving full compliance in areas where gaps exist. However, such information is already captured in the resolvability annual program, causing redundancy and unnecessary burden for the banks, at a time when rationalization of reporting requirements is a legislative priority. Column G should be populated with information regarding test(s) performed by the resolvability entity in each specific area. However, we are of the opinion that this expectation should not be applied across all capabilities. Instead, assessments should be conducted at a less granular level to better reflect the diversity of operational contexts, giving a more realistic and informative picture of the activities conducted by banks. It would be beneficial to specify this point in the operational guidance to avoid unnecessary and unrealistic expectations. In addition, there is a lack of clarity on whether banks are expected to achieve full compliance with all points or if a general level of compliance would suffice (“best effort basis”).