Hearing mit Europäischen Aufsichtsbehörden

Gabriel Bernardino, Chairman of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority as well as Chair of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities , opened the hearing, talking about a range of issues related to the work of EIOPA, the Joint Committee of the ESAs, and the European Systemic Risk Board. The key cornerstones of his speech were: supervisory convergence, consumer protection and financial stability. In particular, he focused on issues such as the implementation of Solvency II, the draft advice adopted on issues under PRIIPs and the IDD, the digitalisation of insurance services, the work on pensions, and the stress tests for IORPs as well as the Insurance Stress Test.

Andrea Enria, Chairman of the European Banking Authority, in his speech spoke about the issue of non-performing loans, as well as the work of the Basel committee and the recent progress made in terms of resolvability. He also touched upon the challenges posed by technological innovation and the potential implications of Brexit on the EBA.

Steven Maijoor, Chairman of the European Securities and Markets Authority talked about ESMA’s recent activities as regards completing the single rulebook, promoting supervisory convergence, and risk assessment and supervision. Mr Maijoor elaborated on the work of the Authority under MiFID II, CRR, EMIR, MAR, AIFMD, and the recently launched CCP stress tests. He also laid out the main future challenges, with a focus on the implementation of the Capital Markets Union.

Burkhard Balz (EPP, DE) posed his questions to Mr Enria. Regarding Brexit, he asked what preparations EBA is making, and if they are going to have a taskforce. Are they going to change to the governance structure?

Mr Enria replied that for the moment the decision-making has not changed and they continue with business as usual. They stand ready to provide any technical assistance in terms of the technical implications of the different options. However, they are not making specific preparations at the moment. The main concern is related to the uncertainty of the staff. It will make both recruiting and retaining of staff more difficult, therefore a sense of direction is needed as soon as possible.

Pervenche Berès (S&D, FR) asked Mr Enria about the work of the Basel committee. She noted the possible implications of the work of the Basel committee on mortgage lending, which may lead to destabilisation and impact the take-up of credit. She asked if this was a good direction. To Mr Maijoor, she posed a question on the Capital Markets Union in light of Brexit.

Andrea Enria stressed that there is a problem which needs to be addressed, but in the meanwhile we have to make sure not to damage non-risky areas that have actually performed well. Capital requirements should not hinder areas where there is no problem, he argued.

Mr Maijoor argued that in light of the Brexit, there is an extra incentive to move forward, as a better balance between banking and capital markets is even more needed in continental Europe. The Commission Communication reflects that view, he noted. One of the areas to progress is in supervisory convergence. We should have more possibility to look into national supervisory practices.

Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, DE) raised concerns about the ethics code of the Agencies in light of Carlos Montalvo going to PwC. On IORP, he noted that the new regulation foresees that all obligations should be fully funded, arguing that there might be a violation of law on that. He asked what measures EIOPA would take. He then posed a question on ESMA’s advice on equivalents, which is becoming an important issue in the context of Brexit. He argued that in many sensitive countries, including tax havens, ESMA has given advice on equivalents in AIFM, which excluded some key criteria, for example liability, the leverage limits, and limits to pay. Why were these excluded, and was there any pressure from the Commission to give such a soft advice? Mr Giegold then argued that the mis-selling of financial products could bear great risks, and asked if there will be a decisive action to pursue EU law in this field.

Mr Bernardino replied to the PwC appointment that there is no conflict in their view, as it is in line with current regulation. What EIOPA did was to establish a one-year period of no contact with EIOPA staff, which goes in line with the spirit of the regulation. On the underfunding on the pension side, he underlined that the IORP Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive and leaves a lot of room for manoeuvre for Member States. There is a gap, and that is why a common has been issued on the possible enhancement of pillar 2 to make this kind of risk assessment. He argued that there is an incentive both to sponsors and members to understand the need for more realistic valuation and take some decisions. From the European perspective, EIOPA is doing everything raise the issue and propose possible solutions.

Brian Hayes (EPP, IE) suggested the EBA moves to Dublin; not too far from London. He asked what the issues are in terms of the move for EBA. He also asked what the moment is when British colleagues will have to step back from voting in the EBA. Is that when Article 50 is triggered? He then asked if a PEPP proposal is possible for second pillar pensions.

Mr Enria noted that it is co-legislators that decide about the location of EBA. As regards UK colleagues, he stressed that there is no possibility to depart from the decision-making procedure written in the founding regulation. The issue is of timing, not of the location, he stressed.

Mr Bernardino replied that it is possible to build a defined contribution framework for cross-border pensions in Europe. He said he would be eager to discuss this in the Parliament, because there is an opportunity, and it would help dealing with the pension gap in an internal market solution.

Pervenche Berès posed a question to Mr Bernardino about the rejected KID RTS under the PRIIPs Regulation. She asked if EIOPA is prepared to move as soon as possible to accelerate the adjustment.

Gabriel Bernardino responded that the situation is clear and the Commission has to decide now what to do about the rejection. He called for working together to agree on the changes as soon as possible. It is obvious that the PRIIPs Regulation cannot be implemented as of January next year, he stressed, adding that the delay should be as short as possible.