BRUSSELS, 30 January 2016 – ESBG members expressed this week their concerns to the EU's banking authority regarding the continually increasing scale of disclosures and the sheer amount of information that needed reporting.
In its response to the European Banking Authority's public consultation on their guidelines around regulatory disclosure requirements, ESBG and its members were quick to point out that in a number of instances the required data or information to be disclosed goes beyond the requirements in the CRR and the revised Pillar 3 standard from the BCBS. Along with the volume, issues regarding the timing of the disclosures and the need to take the upcoming revision of CRR/CRD IV into account were raised by ESBG members. They also detailed concerns over specific tables and templates and have asked the EBA to provide clearer definitions and further examples for certain requirements and exposed conflicts caused by others.
About the EBA consultation
The EBA public consultation on their guidelines on regulatory disclosure requirements comes following an update of the Pillar 3 requirements by the Basel Committee in January 2015. The aim of these guidelines is to provide guidance to institutions to enable them to comply with the CRR provisions while implementing the revised Basel Pillar 3 requirements.
Incorporating Pillar 3 into CRR
The incorporation of the revised Pillar 3 into the CRR requires an update of the disclosure requirements laid down in the CRR, which will only take place as part of a comprehensive review process of the regulation. In the meantime, EU banks will face market pressure to provide disclosures in line with the revised Pillar 3 when it becomes applicable. The revised Pillar 3 framework applies as of 31 December and the guidelines will apply for the year-end 2017 disclosures. The EBA has, however, recommended that G-SII implement a limited subset of disclosures relating to risk-weighted assets (RWA) and capital requirements as soon as year-end 2016 so as to provide users with information suitable for comparison with international peers.
>> See the ESBG response to EBA consultation