Blog Post

EBA relocation should support a long-term ‘twin peaks’ vision

As the Commission launches a review of European financial supervision, the authors argue that Europe needs to move towards a twin peaks model – dividing supervision of prudential and conduct-of-business issues. But this is a long-term vision, and will require institution building. The immediate priorities are to choose a new home for the EBA and reinforce ESMA.

By: and Date: April 5, 2017 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

The European Commission recently published a consultation on the operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), the three EU financial regulatory agencies established in 2011. This debate is timely. In the short term, Brexit will force a relocation of the European Banking Authority (EBA), which is currently based in London. Separately, but also as a consequence of Brexit, the European Union needs to rethink its capital markets oversight framework. Following the recent pooling of euro-area banking supervision at the European Central Bank (ECB), it should further separate prudential oversight from the protection of savers, investors and market integrity, thus implementing an institutional concept known in financial regulatory debates as “twin peaks.” In this blog post, we tentatively explore how to bring these strands together in the European Union’s next legislative steps.

The three ESAs are the EBA, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). This sectoral approach of having separate bodies for banking, insurance and securities is a historical legacy. The European Union had set up sectoral committees in the 1990s and 2000s: first came the Forum of European Securities Commissions (FESCO) in 1997, followed by the so-called Lamfalussy Level-3 Committees of the 2000s. After the financial shock of 2007-08, the Larosière Report of February 2009 crystallised a consensus to move one step further towards EU-level policy integration and a “single rulebook.” However, given widespread lingering differences among member states, the Larosière Report opted for the path of least resistance for institutional design, namely to keep the sectoral scope and intergovernmental governance of the three Lamfalussy Committees while transforming them into fully-formed EU agencies with their own legal personality.

Disclosure: one of the authors (Nicolas Véron) is an independent board member for a trade repository supervised by ESMA. More details are available here.

In fact, the apparent institutional parallelism between the three agencies was slightly misleading from the start. Not only do they cover different sectors, they also have different roles. Notably, ESMA was quickly granted directly binding powers over several market segments: it is the sole supervisor of credit market agencies and trade repositories, and it also has authority to recognise third-country Central Counterparties (CCPs) for their operation in the European Union. In 2015, ESMA created a dedicated Supervision Department to handle these tasks. The EBA and EIOPA have no comparable competencies.

Almost a decade later, after major developments like banking union and Brexit, it is time to re-examine the ESA architecture. It should be reframed in a long-term vision for EU financial oversight, and this vision should bebased on the ‘twin peaks’ concept. Twin peaks is shorthand for the separation of conduct-of-business supervision from prudential supervision, originally proposed by Michael Taylor in a 1995 pamphlet and since adopted by jurisdictions including Australia, the Netherlands and the UK.

There are three main reasons to support a twin peaks model.

First, Europe’s banks and insurers are often linked in financial conglomerates, which warrants integrated supervision of banking and insurance. Based on end-2015 disclosures, we calculate that bank-insurance conglomerates account for 49% of the aggregate assets of the EU’s 30 largest banks, and for 40% of the assets of its 30 largest insurers. In a crisis, problems may emerge in any part of a financial conglomerate, even though the nature and maturity of liabilities are structurally different between banking and insurance. Since the European Union does not appear to envisage a tighter regulatory separation between banking and insurance, it should move towards more integrated prudential supervision of both sectors. In the same spirit, the European Union should amend its capital requirements legislation to reverse the so-called Danish compromise, which allows for double-counting of the same capital for banking and insurance regulation purposes and does not fully comply with the global standards set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

Second, the EU27 urgently needs to upgrade the supervision of its capital markets after Brexit. An empowered EU-level markets supervisor – in practice, a reformed ESMA with additional direct authority – is needed to adapt quickly to this new reality, as we argued in an earlier blog post. This would help to revive the EU’s capital markets union, whose rationale is sound but which so far has delivered only limited results. A twin peaks design enhances the importance of the markets supervisor by granting it authority over most aspects of the protection of investors’ and savers’ interests.

Third, prudential supervision and conduct-of-business supervision (including markets supervision) require different mindsets, skills and approaches. Prudential supervision requires staff trained in economics, finance and/or accountancy, while conduct-of-business supervision is more behavioural and legalistic. Conduct-of-business supervision involves policing the conduct of financial institutions in the markets (insider trading, market abuse, disclosure, etc) and towards clients (adequate information provision, duty of care, know your customer, etc). But on these issues, long and sometimes painful experience demonstrates that prudential supervisors often prioritise the interests of supervised entities over those of their customers.

Overlapping tasks between the prudential and markets authorities typically result in the failure to protect savers. This is one of the lessons of the debacle of securities misselling in Italy, with major negative consequences for individual households, for the reputation of banks, for that of public authorities, and for financial stability.

The recommendation for twin peaks is a long-term aspirational goal. Indeed, the treaty basis for ECB banking supervision expressly prevents its extension to insurance. Current national arrangements vary widely. For example, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain have separate insurance supervisors. Moreover, in many member states, conduct-of-business supervision of banks and insurers is at least partly located in the prudential authorities. Nevertheless, defining a long-term goal is important for making the right decisions on short-term issues.

The most urgent priority is the relocation of EBA. Uncertainty about this will have damaging consequences for EBA staff morale and makes recruitment of qualified experts near-impossible. To remedy this, we recommend that the European Union announce a decision on the new location as soon as the late spring or summer of 2017.

We simultaneously caution against recently broached suggestions to merge EBA with either EIOPA or ESMA, which we view as counterproductive. An EBA-EIOPA merger would not achieve twin peaks, since neither agency is actually a supervisor. Instead, it would generate unwieldy governance complexities given the absence of a counterpart to banking union in the insurance space. An EBA-ESMA merger would be even worse, going squarely against the twin-peaks vision and creating damaging conflicts of interest between the conduct-of-business and prudential mandates of the resulting entity. It is also worth recalling that EBA is needed for technical rule-making and supervisory convergence, as long as the banking union framework does not cover all EU member states. EBA is the right venue to balance the interests between the “ins” and “outs” of banking union: as long as there are “outs,” its competencies cannot be directly assumed by the ECB.

Given all these considerations and the operational imperative to come to a decision quickly, we suggest that the 2017 decision on EBA should be only about relocation, and not about any further reform at this stage. Even though the choice of a new location can be expected to be a political one, rather than policy-driven, it is worth noting that having EBA in Frankfurt, even without a merger with EIOPA, would facilitate joint work with both EIOPA and ECB banking supervisors. It would also ease an eventual merger in a hypothetical long-term scenario in which all EU countries would have joined the banking union. Alternatively, EU leaders may opt for locating EBA in a non-euro-area member state, as a signal that the post-Brexit dominance of euro-area banks (which represent about nine-tenth of the EU27’s total banking assets) will not result in the “outs” being ignored in the preparation of banking regulations.

While EBA reform can wait, the reform and further empowerment of ESMA should be an immediate priority for EU leaders. This would give an important sense of direction for EU financial markets policy at  a time when many financial firms need to determine their operational response to Brexit by end-2017 or early 2018. In essence, ESMA’s governance and funding should be reformed to make it more independent and accountable. Its direct authority should be extended to include:

  • Registration of all EU-critical market infrastructure (in liaison with prudential authorities for CCPs which are systemically important for financial stability, including presumably a legislative empowerment of the ECB and Single Resolution Board in that area)
  • Aacounting enforcement
  • Audit firm supervision
  • Wholesale market activities of investment banks (under the EU Markets in Financial Instruments legislation)
  • Most conduct-of-business regulatory relations with market authorities outside the European Union

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, most other tasks currently lodged in national authorities, such as authorisations for initial public offerings, fund management registrations, and the conduct-of-business supervision of smaller investment and insurance intermediaries to protect retail investors and savers, should remain there for the foreseeable future. However, national authorities should operate under ESMA’s umbrella to ensure EU-wide consistency.

The pooling of conduct-of-business supervision under ESMA’s oversight also implies that an increasing number of financial firms (including banks, insurers and CCPs) will be subject to “double supervision” by both conduct-of-business and prudential authorities. Special interests will surely denounce this duality as unacceptable complexity. But given the different objectives of the two types of supervision, it should be viewed as not only unavoidable, but actually desirable.

The European Commission’s review of Capital Markets Union, scheduled for June 2017, provides an appropriate opportunity to trigger a decision-making process that could result in EU decisions of principle on ESMA reform and further empowerment later this year. Of course, the finalisation and implementation of the corresponding legislation would inevitably take longer.

As for insurance, the EU Solvency II legislation, in force since last year, allows insurers to use their internal models for capital purposes. Given the strong cross-border nature of the large European insurers, EIOPA should become responsible for the approval and monitoring of these internal models. EIOPA might thus get direct supervisory tasks vis-à-vis the large insurers in the European Union.

These decisions would support the long-term vision of a Twin Peaks regulatory framework for the European Union. The completion of that framework would require treaty change, to merge ECB banking supervision with a still-to-be-created EU level of insurance supervision; and an extension of banking union to all EU member states, to allow the duplication between ECB Banking Supervision to be eliminated. None of these two conditions can be expected to be fulfilled any time soon. In the meantime, the swift relocation of EBA, elevation of ESMA into a vigorous conduct-of-business supervisor at the EU level, and gradual build-up of EIOPA direct authority, would together represent a consistent and effective European approach.

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Financial Stability Conference 2017

EU at Crossroads: How to respond to Misalignments in Bank Regulation and achieve a consistent financial Framework?

Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Berlin, Germany Date: October 15, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

A European perspective on overindebtedness

The sequence of crisis and policy responses after mid-2007 was a gradual recognition of the unsustainability of the euro-area policy framework. The bank-sovereign vicious circle was first observed in 2009 and became widely acknowledged in the course of 2011 and early 2012. The most impactful initiative has been the initiation of a banking union in mid-2012, but this remains incomplete and needs strengthening.

By: Nicolas Véron and Jeromin Zettelmeyer Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 28, 2017
Read article

Blog Post

How has banking union changed mergers and acquistions?

The aim of the banking union was to break the toxic link between banks and states. One way of achieving this is by increasing cross border banking through mergers and acquisitions. This blog shows that little has changed in M&A activity since the banking union was launched. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a slight re-nationalisiation of banking consolidation.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 13, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Nordea’s move to the Banking Union is no surprise

Scandinavian banking giant is moving to Finland. This is not just a flight from increasing taxes and tighter regulation in its current home, Sweden. Nordea is also moving inside the banking union to find a fiscal backstop large enough to see it through any future crisis. Will this vote of confidence encourage Sweden and Denmark to join the banking union?

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 12, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Europe must seize this moment of opportunity

As the EU enjoys a period of growth and relative stability, there is finally room to undertake long-needed reforms. But it is vital to act soon, and priorities must be set. There are three pillars of reform for the coming months: completing a robust euro area; building a coherent EU foreign policy; and harnessing the single market’s potential to deliver strong and inclusive growth.

By: Agnès Bénassy-Quéré, Michael Hüther, Philippe Martin and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 12, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Precautionary recapitalisation: time for a review?

While precautionary recapitalisation is a legitimate instrument for bank crisis management, the conditions set for it by BRRD (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) are restrictive and have so far been effective to prevent its inappropriate use on insolvent banks. Nevertheless, the European Stability Mechanism should be empowered to participate in future precautionary recapitalisations.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 13, 2017
Read article Download PDF More by this author

External Publication

European Parliament

Precautionary recapitalisations: time for a review

Precautionary recapitalisation, a tool for public intervention in the banking sector defined in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), is a legitimate instrument for bank crisis management. The conditions set for it by BRRD are restrictive and have so far been effective to prevent its inappropriate use on insolvent banks. Outside of the scope of BRRD, the co-legislators should consider a reform of the EU audit framework to improve audit quality, and the European Stability Mechanism should be empowered to participate in future precautionary recapitalisations.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Parliament, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 12, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

A macro approach to international bank resolution

As regulators rush to strengthen banking supervision and implement bank resolution regimes, a macro approach to resolution is needed that considers both the contagion effects of bail-in and the continuing need for a fiscal backstop to the financial system. This can be facilitated through the completion of a banking union in which the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) becomes the fiscal backstop to the euro-area banking system.

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 10, 2017
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Is there a way out of non-performing loans in Europe?

At this event we looked at the issue of non-performing loans in Europe. The event also saw the launch of the latest issue of "European Economy – Banks, Regulation and the Real Sector."

Speakers: Emilios Avgouleas, Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Giacomo Calzolari, Maria Demertzis, Martin Hellwig, Helen Louri and Laura von Daniels Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 6, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

A tangled tale of bank liquidation in Venice

What can we learn about the Italian banking sector from the decision to liquidate Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza? Silvia Merler sees a tendency for Italy to let politics outweigh economics.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: June 26, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Bail-ins and bank resolution in Europe

This invitation-only event will feature a presentation by Thomas Philippon of a report on bail-ins and bank resolution in Europe. Failed financial firms should not be bailed out by the taxpayers. Europe, unfortunately, has a weak track record of following this principle of good governance and sound economic policy. The banking union, with its new […]

Speakers: Thomas Philippon Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 19, 2017
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Policy Contribution

German Bundestag

Charting the next steps for the EU financial supervisory architecture

The combination of banking union and Brexit justifies a reform of the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in the near term, in line with the subsidiarity principle and the accountability of EBA and ESMA and their scrutiny by the European Parliament should be enhanced as a key element of their governance reform.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, German Bundestag Date: June 7, 2017
Load more posts