Am 19. September findet in Brüssel die nächste Anhörung der Präsidenten der Europäischen Finanzaufsichtsbehörden (EIOPA, ESMA und EBA) in unserem Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON) statt.
Diesen Termin möchte ich nutzen, um die u.g. Fragen einzubringen. Diese wurden unter anderem eingereicht vom UK Financial Services Consumer Panel, dem Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken sowie den Lübecker Grünen.
Green Questions to the ESAs
For EBA
– How, and by whom is it ensured that standards, guidelines and recommendations are based on the principles of proportionality? How can proportionality be implemented, and how can improvements be made?
– Does EBA evaluate which costs standards and other measures generate for credit institutions?
– Does EBA ensure that standards and guidelines on governance take into account the different legal forms and legal cultures in the EU?
– Apart from stress tests EBA carries out 6 monthly Risk Assessment Exercise as well as ad hoc requests. This is done through the national supervisors, while the evaluation is carried out by EBA. Some credit institutions have expressed preference for direct communication with EBA. Is the envisaged? How can the procedures, including back-and-forth exchanges be made quicker and smoother? What happens with the results of the ad hoc tests? Thus far results are only published in aggregated form.
– How does EBA ensure that tasks being entrusted to EBA by CRD IV, in particular with view to technical standards, can be carried out quickly, efficiently, and in a sound manner.
– When does EBA present results of its investigations into the risk weighting for SMEs.
For all ESAs
– Which measures have been taken or are being prepared to monitor and regulate more effectively the world of „shadow banking“. Do the ESAs have a definition of what constitutes shadow banking, and is there consistency with the approach of national supervisors?
– How should the articulation between the ESAs and the future ECB-centred supervisor be designed and implemented? Which potential problems and challenges do you see? For EIOPA: What problems and challenges do you expect given the limitations in Art. 127 (6) of the treaties?
– How are the ESAs measuring the effectiveness of their consumer protection agenda under Article 9 Do the ESAs feel they have sufficient powers, tools and resources (including resources to support the stakeholder and consultative groups) to deliver in this regard (consumer protection)? If not, what else would be needed?
– Can the ESA provide insight into the state of recruitment of new staff? What problems and challenges have been indentified? Could you provide an overview of staff per nationality?
– How do the ESAs intend to correct the lack of the legally required (article 37.2) balanced representation between the industry and users in the ESAs Stakeholder Groups ? (re: the complaints from EF and from BEUC to the European Ombudsman: the financial industry or service providers to the industry compose the majority of the 30-member Groups versus 2 to 5 retail user representatives). What is done to further improve the balance within the stakeholder groups?
– How do the ESAs manage the conflict of objectives between the solvency of the providers and of the markets on the one side and the protection of retail users on the other side ? Especially as this ESA objective is only number 6 and last. It too often seems that ESAs are much more focussed on systemic risks than on user protection issues (example on ETFs: see the Securities & Markets Stakeholder Group Advice Paper, second sentence).
– How have the ESAs ensured a consistent and comprehensive supervision of all retail investment products, especially pension -related ones, as the responsibilities are spread between the 3 ESAs and with loopholes (for example most of Pillar 3 pension products fall in a grey area between EIOPA and ESMA) ? This is all the more of a concern as pension savings are more and more critical for the well-being of EU citizens but are the least regulated and most opaque products (even the PRIPs precontractual information proposal from the EC excludes many of them). The Joint Committee of ESAs does not seem to have had any material impact there yet. How can and will this be improved?
– How have the ESAs ensured and will ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach to SME financing as they relate to the three ESAs responsibilities and they are a crucial issue for job creation in the EU? (the ESMA SG is faced with a lack of ESAs actual coordination on this issue)
– How do the ESAs intend to correct the lack of the legally required (article 37.4) adequate secretarial support to the stakeholder groups?
– How do the ESAs intend to correct the lack of the legally required (article 37.4) adequate compensation of members representing non-profit organisations, as the ESAs have decided to compensate them with € 18.75 per hour gross2, i.e. 15 to 20 times less than their senior commercial consultants? This is all the more concerning as the imbalance of resources is a primary reason for the overwhelming influence of industry lobbies on the design of European financial policies as recognised by the EC and by the EESC.