OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Savings and Retail Banking Group

ESBG

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group represents the interests of retail and savings banks.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Michalis Hadjipantela (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Dec 2025 · Introductory Meeting

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

4 Dec 2025 · SIU

Meeting with Ralf Seekatz (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

12 Nov 2025 · Verbriefung

Meeting with Stella Kaltsouni (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen)

17 Oct 2025 · ESBG Retail Banking Conference 2025

European Savings Banks urge major limits on FiDA data sharing regulation

14 Oct 2025
Topic — Simplifying EU digital regulations, including FiDA financial data access framework.
Message — The organization requests narrow FiDA scope covering only retail customers and limited data categories driven by genuine market demand. They want gradual implementation with realistic timelines, exclusion of gatekeepers, and third-country firms required to establish in EU. They oppose the permission dashboard design and excessive new regulatory standards.12345
Why — This would reduce their compliance costs, estimated at over €300 million per institution.67
Impact — Consumers face expanded attack surface for fraud, privacy breaches and cyberattacks from forced open access to sensitive financial data.8
Read full response

Meeting with Mattias Levin (Acting Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Oct 2025 · FIDA, simplification, AI in financial services

Meeting with Eric Ducoulombier (Acting Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and European Banking Federation and

9 Oct 2025 · Implementation of two obligations for payment service providers under the Instant Payments Regulation

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament) and EcoVadis and Tony's Chocolonely

2 Oct 2025 · EU Omnibus I

European banking group opposes new EU corporate regime

25 Sept 2025
Topic — Proposal for EU-wide corporate legal framework to assist innovative companies.
Message — The organization requests the EU abandon the proposed 28th regime and instead focus on reforming existing company law instruments. They argue a new parallel regime would increase complexity rather than reduce it, creating legal uncertainty and burdening SMEs.123
Why — This preserves their members' competitive position under existing national frameworks without new compliance burdens.45
Impact — Workers and creditors lose protections through regulatory arbitrage to lenient jurisdictions.67
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

3 Sept 2025 · Exchange on developments in banking regulation

European savings banks urge simpler rules and less red tape

25 Aug 2025
Topic — The EU is developing a new strategy for consumer protection and digital fairness.
Message — The group urges the simplification of existing laws and the elimination of information overload for bank customers. They argue for consistent enforcement of current rules rather than adding new layers of legislation.12
Why — Reducing regulatory complexity would significantly lower compliance burdens and operational costs for retail banks.34
Impact — Vulnerable consumers may face higher risks if detailed disclosure requirements are significantly diminished.5
Read full response

European retail banks urge EU to streamline data sharing rules

18 Jul 2025
Topic — The consultation seeks to streamline data rules and create a coherent legal framework.
Message — ESBG demands that streamlining existing data rules becomes an absolute priority to ensure legal coherence. They urge the EU to avoid creating overlapping sectoral regulations that isolate the financial industry.12
Why — A unified framework would improve competitiveness by allowing banks to leverage economies of scale.3
Impact — The financial sector suffers from high costs caused by redundant data-sharing requirements.4
Read full response

European retail banks urge broader eligibility for securitisation assets

14 Jul 2025
Topic — The Commission is reviewing liquidity rules for banks holding securitisation assets.
Message — ESBG requests lower haircuts for high-quality assets to boost market investment. They propose including more resilient transactions beyond current strict criteria.12
Why — Lower haircuts would allow banks to more easily meet liquidity requirements.3
Read full response

ESBG warns against one-size-fits-all model for savings accounts

8 Jul 2025
Topic — The EU is creating a blueprint for savings and investment accounts to boost retail participation.
Message — ESBG recommends a flexible framework where member states are encouraged rather than forced to implement accounts. They advocate for maintaining national control over taxation and avoiding new EU-wide product labels.123
Why — This protects existing bank products and lowers costs by preventing burdensome new EU regulations.4
Impact — EU policymakers seeking to mandate investment in European companies lose a tool for strategic autonomy.5
Read full response

European retail banks urge simplified AI Act implementation rules

4 Jun 2025
Topic — A European Commission initiative to accelerate industrial AI adoption and enhance public services.
Message — ESBG requests sector-specific guidance to resolve regulatory uncertainties and better alignment between the AI Act and GDPR. They also advocate for flexible data laws and subsidies to develop European-led AI competitors.123
Why — Streamlined rules would reduce administrative burdens and help banks innovate without fear of contradictory legal injunctions.45
Impact — Non-European tech providers would face increased competition from heavily subsidized EU-centric cloud and AI infrastructure.67
Read full response

Meeting with Ugo Bassi (Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and

2 Jun 2025 · Exchange of views on prudential regulation in banking

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and Insurance Europe and

22 Apr 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Markus Ferber (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Apr 2025 · Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Mar 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus

ESBG Urges Permanent Lower Capital Rules for Banks

10 Mar 2025
Topic — The consultation explores making temporary capital rules permanent for short-term securities financing transactions.
Message — ESBG supports making temporary rules permanent for short-term transactions with maturities under six months. They also request maintaining lower capital requirements for unsecured placements at central institutions.12
Why — This would prevent increased costs and protect the viability of smaller affiliated banks.34
Impact — Larger banks might lose their relative competitive advantage over smaller institutions with central affiliations.5
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Mar 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Didier Millerot (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. and

16 Jan 2025 · Upcoming topics in sustainable finance

Response to Qualified electronic attestation of attributes under the EDIF

24 Dec 2024

The European Credit Sector Associations (European Association for Co-operative Banks, European Banking Federation, and European Savings and Retail Banking Group ECSAs) are supportive of the ambition to establish a coherent Europe-wide framework for digital identity (eIDAS 2.0). We would like to share observations regarding the draft implementing regulation prepared by the Commission concerning qualified and electronic attestation of attributes in the context of European Digital Identity Wallets (EUDIWs). Please see our suggestions in the document attached.
Read full response

European banking associations urge simplified digital identity wallet registration

24 Dec 2024
Topic — The consultation defines how entities register to interact with the European Digital Identity Wallet.
Message — The associations recommend high confidence level identification and registration for actual data controllers. They also propose simplifying the system by offering one consolidated national register.123
Why — A single register would reduce compliance costs for banks operating across borders.45
Impact — Smaller businesses could face higher costs from stringent technical and registration requirements.67
Read full response

Response to Cross-border identity matching under the European Digital Identity Framework

24 Dec 2024

The European Credit Sector Associations (European Association for Co-operative Banks, European Banking Federation, and European Savings and Retail Banking Group ECSAs) are supportive of the ambition to establish a coherent Europe-wide framework for digital identity (eIDAS 2.0). We would like to share observations regarding the draft implementing regulation prepared by the Commission concerning cross-border identity matching of natural persons by public sector bodies in the context of European Digital Identity Wallets (EUDIWs). Please see our suggestions in the document attached.
Read full response

Response to Security breaches of European Digital Identity Wallets

24 Dec 2024

The European Credit Sector Associations (European Association for Co-operative Banks, European Banking Federation, and European Savings and Retail Banking Group ECSAs) are supportive of the ambition to establish a coherent Europe-wide framework for digital identity (eIDAS 2.0). We would like to share observations regarding the draft implementing regulation prepared by the Commission concerning the reaction to security breaches in the context of European Digital Identity Wallets (EUDIWs). Please see our suggestions in the document attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament) and DuPont de Nemours International SARL

10 Dec 2024 · Economic priorities

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Sept 2024 · Exchange on CSDD and CSRD

European banking groups demand mandatory biometrics for digital wallets

9 Sept 2024
Topic — New rules for the communication channel between the Commission and Member States for digital wallets.
Message — The associations demand mandatory biometrics in identification data and a standardized European notification system. They also call for strict service level agreements to ensure minimal system downtime.123
Why — Standardised rules and mandatory biometrics would lower administrative costs and reduce fraud liability.4
Impact — Fraudsters lose opportunities for identity theft through stricter, biometric-based user binding requirements.5
Read full response

European banking group urges mandatory biometrics for digital wallets

9 Sept 2024
Topic — Technical rules for managing personal identification data within European Digital Identity Wallets.
Message — The group requests a mandatory set of data including biometrics and addresses. They also recommend a structured format for personal birth details.123
Why — Banks would lower costs and prevent fraud using passport-grade digital verification.45
Impact — Privacy-conscious users face higher risks if sensitive biometric data is compromised.6
Read full response

European banking group urges more detail on digital wallet rules

9 Sept 2024
Topic — Consultation on rules for the integrity and core functions of European Digital Identity Wallets.
Message — The group believes the draft regulation requires more detail and clarity on core functions. They suggest making the possibility for users to add biometrics to the identity mandatory. They also recommend that transaction logs include details of the mutual authentication protocol.123
Why — Automated onboarding would help banks lower operational costs and improve their customer satisfaction.4
Impact — Consumers could lose access to services if banks reject identification during wallet system outages.5
Read full response

EU banking sector demands clearer standards for digital identity wallets

9 Sept 2024
Topic — Technical rules for protocols and interfaces supporting European Digital Identity Wallets.
Message — The associations call for clearer specifications and the use of established international standards to ensure interoperability. They specifically recommend making biometrics a mandatory part of personal identification data to prevent identity fraud.12
Why — Enhanced identity binding would lower operational costs and prevent financial losses from fraud.34
Impact — Privacy advocates face higher risks from mandatory biometric data storage and potential leaks.5
Read full response

Meeting with Enikő Győri (Member of the European Parliament) and FTI Consulting Belgium

25 Jul 2024 · financial services and banking sector

Response to Evaluation of Administrative Cooperation in Direct Taxation

19 Jul 2024

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for allowing us to voice our opinion on the European Commissions consultation on Directive 2011/16/EU (directive on administrative cooperation - DAC). The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) would like to provide you with the comments below, which we hope will be considered by the Commission. According to ESBG, the exchange of information set up in the EU has been useful in increasing transparency on financial data, which might have an impact on the fight against tax evasion and fulfills its main objectives. While the Automatic Ex-change of Information (AEOI) has broadened cooperation, the costs incurred by financial institutions (FI) in countries like France, the UK, Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg have been high, totaling around 340 million EUR with yearly costs of around 120 million EUR, as noted in the Commission's report on AEOI direct tax-ation from 17 December 2018. ESBG suggests that the provisions of DAC 6 should be reviewed in-depth be-cause the stakeholders of tax planning or structuring are not put in place by fi-nancial institutions, which do not have the expertise. Consequently, these institu-tions have had to implement extensive due diligence processes for limited re-porting of tax arrangements, as they are not promoters. The ESBG also expects better interactions among regulations, such as reconciling the "tipping off prohi-bition" with the requirement to inform on DAC 6 arrangement "hallmark D.1." Furthermore, while there is a lot of data exchange with the authorities, it is some-times misconstrued, particularly tax data versus raw financial data. There is a need to ensure the proper use of this data by tax authorities, as it might be un-derused before launching further reporting requirements. Additionally, there has been an increase in tax compliance among clients regarding tax residency, Tax-payer Identification Numbers (TIN), and types of structures. Especially with regard to DAC 2 the TIN is important. If it is determined that an account holder is a resident of a reportable jurisdiction, the financial institution must obtain the account holder's TIN in certain cases. A list of all applicable TINs can be found on the OECD website (https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementation-and-assistance/tax-identification-numbers/). However, we have found that this list is sometimes incomplete or not up to date. As a result, we had cases where some institutions rejected account openings due to information provided on this website because they fear consequences during audits by the tax authorities. The European Commission should advocate for regular updates by the OECD. Since the CRS (DAC 2) requires financial institutions to collect and verify the TINs of account holders, an automated, complete and reliable query should be provid-ed to check whether the respective country issues a TIN, instead of the current manual query via the OECD website. Financial institutions should also be enabled to perform automated validation of these TINs.
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and BPCE and

21 Feb 2024 · important files until end of mandate: CMDI, RIS, digital euro, PSR/PSD

Meeting with Gerassimos Thomas (Director-General Taxation and Customs Union)

21 Feb 2024 · Physical meeting - Discussion covering various tax issues in relation to the financial sector

Meeting with Isabella Tovaglieri (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Dec 2023 · EPBD

Response to Payment services – revision of EU rules (new Regulation)

30 Oct 2023

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission's legislative proposal for a new Payment Services Regulation. Please consider the attached ESBG position as our formal response to the Have Your Say consultation. We positively receive a number of the provisions of the regulation, the overarching goals of the Commission following PSD2 and the stated benefits of creating a regulation to govern key aspects of modern European payments. Among the areas we have requested reconsideration, based on past experiences of PSD2, we would propose lengthier implementation periods (min. 24 months) and recalibration of the current liability model, to be at least in line with principles of gross negligence already in place across EU consumer law. We look forward to continuing to engage with the European Commission, co-legislators and ESAs as this legislation continues to evolve.
Read full response

European savings banks demand fair compensation for data sharing

23 Oct 2023
Topic — The European Commission's proposal establishes a framework for sharing financial sector customer data.
Message — ESBG requests a gradual implementation and a compensation model that covers all data preparation costs. They insist that processed data and trade secrets must be excluded from the sharing requirements.12
Why — This would allow banks to recover more costs and protect proprietary information.3
Impact — Fintech companies would lose free access to valuable, high-quality bank-processed information.4
Read full response

ESBG warns EU tax proposal creates burdensome bank liability

13 Sept 2023
Topic — The EU is consulting on a common system for withholding tax relief.
Message — ESBG seeks a uniform definition of owners to prevent national inconsistencies. They demand a delay to 2029 and reject new liability rules for banks. Additionally, banks should be allowed to charge fees for tax refund services.123
Why — This would lower administrative burdens and shield banks from legal liability.45
Impact — Member States risk losing revenue due to inconsistent definitions of beneficial ownership.6
Read full response

Response to Establishing the digital euro

8 Sept 2023

Please find the feedback from the European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) in the Paper attached.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Consumer Programme

28 Aug 2023

ESBG supports the objective of the EU Consumer Programme to holistically strengthen and promote consumer protection in the EU. The aim of the eleven individual actions resulting from the programme was, in particular, to ensure that consumers have access to accurate information, understand their rights and are protected when they buy or use goods and services in the EU. Educated consumers know their rights and are empowered to enforce them on their own. As a banking association, we are not the direct addressee of these financially supported individual measures, but we are the addressee of the consumer protection that is incumbent on us with regard to financial services. The evaluation of the consumer programme should, therefore, also include aspects such as effectiveness, efficiency and the added value of these measures with regard to consumer-contractual relations. The strengths and weaknesses of these individual measures only become apparent at the stage of the concrete conclusion of contracts and their implementation, which overall only allow for a sustainable, targeted evaluation - taking into account the developments in consumer protection. We also see the need for adjustments in order to establish a modern consumer protection fit for the digital age and matching European values. Consumer protection concepts should strike a balance between protecting the rights and interests of consumers on the one hand and promoting a competitive and innovative business environment on the other. This approach would also be aligned with the objectives sought by the programme. In addition, the "consumer model," is vital for effective consumer protection within the Single Market. However, the EU currently lacks a consistent view of this model, which is critical for evaluating such a consumer program. In its judgment of 11 September 2019 in the Romano case, the CJEU defines the consumer model as the "average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect". This understanding of the average consumer concept must be in line with current consumer policy approaches at the European level. We interpret this statement in particular as meaning that consumers must be able to conclude contracts in a self-determined manner instead of being inundated with information. This applies in particular to the digital sale of financial services. To this end, the following six measures, in particular, are necessary/meaningful for the establishment of a modern consumer model: (1) After the statutory information obligations have been greatly expanded in recent years, consolidation and revaluation are necessary. Due to various legal requirements that are not sufficiently coordinated with each other, consumers sometimes receive multiple and differently prepared information on the same facts. (2) Consolidation and harmonisation should take greater account of the increasingly digital distribution channels. When concluding contracts, e.g. via smartphone, an obligation to display several pages of information to the consumer does not make sense. (3) The mandatory information should be reduced to the essentials. (4) The scope of the statutory information obligations should reflect the significance of the respective legal transaction. (5) The starting point for legally required information can only be the responsible consumer, who is capable of being informed and decides for himself how profoundly he wants to be informed. It is important to strengthen confidence in the consumer that he or she chooses for him- or herself whether he or she already feels sufficiently informed or whether he or she needs even more comprehensive information. (6) Financial education promotes consumers' ability to make self-determined decisions. In view of advancing digitalisation, consumers' "digital literacy" should also be strengthened.
Read full response

ESBG Slams Price-Fixing Benchmarks in Retail Investment Strategy

4 Aug 2023
Topic — The consultation explores legislative measures to strengthen retail investor participation in capital markets.
Message — ESBG opposes the proposed value for money benchmarks and the partial ban on inducements. They also demand significantly longer deadlines for banks to implement the new technical requirements.123
Why — This would allow banks to avoid high compliance costs and protect current commission-based revenues.4
Impact — Retail investors could face fewer product choices and diminished access to personalized branch services.5
Read full response

European savings banks demand right to review ESG ratings

3 Aug 2023
Topic — EU initiative to regulate the transparency and integrity of ESG rating provider activities.
Message — Rating providers should provide draft reports to the rated undertaking to allow for review and correction. This helps avoid potential misinterpretation of data during the assessment process.12
Why — Banks could prevent negative ratings resulting from data errors or the non-disclosure of confidential documents.3
Impact — ESG rating agencies would lose autonomy and face increased administrative burdens during report preparation.4
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

18 Jul 2023 · Distribution of Retail financial products

ESBG Urges Mandatory Climate Data for Banking Compliance

7 Jul 2023
Topic — New European standards defining how companies must report environmental, social, and governance factors.
Message — ESBG suggests maintaining mandatory climate disclosure indicators and topics, including greenhouse gas emissions. They propose retaining mandatory environmental and social disclosures necessary for regulatory compliance.12
Why — This would lower compliance costs by ensuring banks receive necessary data directly from clients.3
Impact — Corporate borrowers face increased administrative burdens as they must report data regardless of relevance.4
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President)

27 Apr 2023 · Digital Euro; Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Apr 2023 · Retail investment strategy, Euro numérique

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2023 · Round-Table on Digital Euro (with EVP Dombrovskis and DG FISMA)

Response to Facilitating small and medium sized enterprises’ access to capital

22 Mar 2023

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the European Commission consultation on the Listing Act. The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) would like to share with you its reflections and proposals which are outlined in the attached paper below. Best regards, Angela Coriz
Read full response

ESBG urges EU to decriminalize negligent bank human errors

30 Jan 2023
Topic — A proposal to harmonize criminal definitions and penalties for violating EU sanctions.
Message — The association suggests removing the penalization of serious negligent violations, focusing on intentional acts. They propose a voluntary self-disclosure to exempt staff from criminal consequences of human error. Finally, they request clear implementation instructions and an appropriate implementation period.123
Why — This would reduce liability risk and help recruitment of qualified compliance employees.45
Impact — EU enforcement authorities lose the ability to penalize banks for serious negligence.6
Read full response

European savings banks urge clarity on AI liability rules

2 Dec 2022
Topic — The consultation concerns updated liability rules for damages caused by artificial intelligence systems.
Message — ESBG requests clearer definitions for duty of care and tools to refute causal links. They also seek alignment with existing regulations to prevent firms from exploiting legal differences.123
Why — Clearer rules and refutation tools would allow banks to effectively contest liability claims.45
Impact — Claimants lose if cultural and legal differences allow firms to hide proprietary information about AI applications.6
Read full response

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

23 Nov 2022 · CRR3 (staff)

European Savings Banks Demand Exemption from Cyber Resilience Act

15 Nov 2022
Topic — New EU legislation setting mandatory cybersecurity standards for digital hardware and software.
Message — The group requests an explicit exclusion for financial institutions already covered by existing resilience laws. They want the rules to apply only to products purchased directly by end users.12
Why — This would prevent banks from facing redundant reporting rules and costly new compliance procedures.3
Read full response

Response to Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services - Review of EU rules

8 Jul 2022

ESBG supports the scenario chosen by the Commission for its proposal to re-tain the relevant and still valid elements of the DMFSD by integrating them into a broader directive (the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU which is not currently concerning financial products) and to make some adjustments. Thus, a specific chapter dedicated to “Financial services contracts concluded at a dis-tance” has been added to this directive, making it possible to retain the speci-ficities of the DMFSD. A number of general articles of the Consumer Rights Directive would also ap-ply to the distance selling of financial products, for example the penalties, but they are much heavier than those currently existing in the DMFSD. The refer-ence to the general articles specifies (article 3 point 2) that if there is a specific act of the Union, (for example a specific directive), it is the provisions of this act which apply for this point, thus bringing precision and valuable legal cer-tainty. We also ask the Commission why the Payment Services Directive 2 is not one of the mentioned specific Union Acts in recital 13. It has also been dis-cussed whether there are conflicting pre-contractual information requirements in the Deposit Guarantee Directive that would solely apply for distance deposit account agreements in the future. The Commission's proposal for a directive aimed at modifying the Consumer Rights Directive and repealing the DMFSD, seems to us to retain the ad-vantages (in particular its technical neutrality) and principles of the DMFSD. ESBG members are more concerned with what happens if the scope of the Consumer Rights Directive is updated, which seems to happen frequently. It will be necessary to ensure that the legislative process makes it possible to maintain this balance while avoiding distorting the principle of the minimum safety net for new products, which is the great strength of the current DMSFD. ESBG is also of the opinion that the review of the DMFSD should be carried out at the same time as the Consumer Credit Directive, to allow the texts to cover everything they need to and not leave room for gaps in the legislation. For the detailed feedback on specific articles of the proposal, please see attached out full position paper.
Read full response

Meeting with Marc Angel (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jun 2022 · Banking Union

Meeting with Paul Tang (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

14 Jun 2022 · Meeting on Anti-Money Laundering Package

European savings banks urge against ban on investment commissions

31 May 2022
Topic — EU consultation on policies to increase retail participation in financial markets.
Message — ESBG advocates for keeping commission-based advice models to ensure small investors retain access to support. They also request a reduction in mandatory information disclosures to avoid overwhelming clients and want certain reporting requirements abolished.123
Why — Maintaining commissions secures continued access to smaller clients while lowering administrative costs.45
Impact — Consumer groups lose protections against potential conflicts of interest inherent in commission-based sales.6
Read full response

European Savings Banks Urge Practical Limits to Sustainability Due Diligence

23 May 2022
Topic — A consultation on new EU rules for corporate sustainability due diligence.
Message — The group calls for limits to due diligence that exclude SMEs and direct impacts. They propose a voluntary framework for best practices instead of new legal obligations.12
Why — Reducing the scope would lower administrative costs and prevent unpredictable legal liability risks.34
Impact — Victims of human rights abuses lose legal certainty under the suggested voluntary framework.5
Read full response

ESBG urges fair compensation for data sharing costs

12 May 2022
Topic — This consultation seeks feedback on the Data Act proposal for fair data access.
Message — The ESBG supports mandatory compensation for data access costs and preventing negative business impacts. They want credit cards excluded from the regulation's scope for security reasons. Additionally, they argue that inferred and derived data should remain protected.123
Why — Banks would protect their proprietary insights and recoup technical costs for data sharing.45
Impact — Small companies and data users face higher costs if exemptions are narrowed.678
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

29 Mar 2022

ESBG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation establishing a European single access point (ESAP). The availability of quality, comparable, reliable and public ESG data is currently rather limited and insufficient to meet rising expectations and new legal requirements set to take effect soon. When data are available, it is often impossible to compare, which raises doubts about its credibility. Furthermore, ESG data from third-party suppliers is often too expensive, particularly for small financial market participants, researchers, and academics. With the growing demand for ESG data, fragmentation among ESG third-party data providers risks resulting in a lack of comparable and accurate data, as well as excessive costs. ESBG endorses the Commission's proposal for the following reasons: • The ESAP will provide easy access to extensive sustainability-related data in a timely and efficient manner. It will also help address a growing demand for investors, companies, NGOs and civil society to contribute to the objectives of the European Green Deal. • Making information available in an extractable format or in a machine-readable format, ESAP will enable the use and re-use of companies' data and will make a significant contribution to the digital transformation of finance. • SMEs will especially be able to file relevant information voluntarily that will enhance their visibility towards EU and international investors and diversify their sources of funding as well as increase the availability of company and investment product information. This will also address a growing demand for sustainability-related data by banks. We appreciate that the current proposal merely regulates the structure of the central register and the reporting channels without introducing changes or additions to the data that corporates are required to report. However, we are concerned about the introduction of additional reporting requirements and costs for data providers. We would like to emphasize, particularly in relation to the PRIIPs Regulation (EU) 1286/2014, that the costly efforts for manufacturers to stay on track with the new reporting requirements will outweigh the benefits for ESAP users. This is due to a large number of PRIIPs in some national markets, as well as the fact that the KID must be submitted to the relevant collection body and updated on a regular basis. Therefore, we urge the European Commission to not create new reporting channels and ensure that additional efforts are kept to a minimum. Given the need for ESG data, the ESAP should first focus on ESG disclosures in line with the NFRD and EU Taxonomy based information, as well as ESG data necessary for financial market participants to comply with the SFDR. The ESAP could also include relevant ESG information already collected by European and national institutions such as governments, central banks, statistical bodies, etc. With regards to data accessibility, ESBG appreciates that data submitted to the ESAP will be made available directly, immediately, digitally and free of charge. We also believe that the provided level of standardization will facilitate the collection of data. More specifically, we suggest that the ESAP should: • Provide more than one tool for accessing the data • Enable numerous query structures • Facilitate maximum capacity and functionalities in the event of sort requests, filters and multiple indicators • Focus on how the integrity of the data and security is to be guaranteed • Enable downloadable formats to be extracted both as machine-readable as well as human-readable ESBG also supports the appointment of ESMA as the responsible body for establishing and operating the ESAP. Public funding is in line with ESBG’s view; however, we consider that development and maintenance costs should be covered only by EU funds without the participation of National Competent Authorities.
Read full response

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

22 Mar 2022 · CRR

Meeting with Ismail Ertug (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

8 Mar 2022 · AFIR

Response to Alignment EU rules on capital requirements to international standards (prudential requirements and market discipline)

22 Feb 2022

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) positively assesses the banking package proposal issued by the European Commission. It transposes the final elements of the Basel III reforms in the EU regulatory framework and it pursues other prudential and supervisory objectives. Whilst the Commission has sought to take into consideration many issues raised so far by policy makers and the financial sector in order to find a well-balanced and realistic starting point for the co-legislators, we believe that the proposal still requires further adjustments. We support the proposal to apply the output floor as prescribed in the Basel text, i.e. at the highest level of consolidation. The envisaged single-stack approach, alternative to using the floor as a backstop by applying it to internationally agreed capital requirements only, requires however that supervisory powers are more clearly framed and that the arrangements mitigating its impact are of a longer-term nature or permanent. The transitional arrangements for residential real estate, unrated corporates and SA-CCR do not address underlying structural factors that prevail in the European banking sector. These flexibilizations should be made permanent or at least phased out based on the actual observation of structural changes, such as the share of mortgages securitised and out of the bank’s prudential scope, or the share of corporates rated by eligible rating agencies in the case of unrated corporates. Moreover, the flexibilizations should be extended also to institutions using the standardised approach in order to ensure a level playing field. In the area of operational risk, we recognise the proposal to disregard historical operational losses for all institutions within the calculation of capital requirements, meaning that the Internal Loss Multiplier (ILM) is effectively being set equal to one. This is a discretion provided in the Basel framework. As regard equity exposures, we propose to implement a new category with a lower 100% RW for long term strategic equity investments. Regarding specialised lending, the proposal to increase the risk sensitivity for unrated object finance exposures is positive. We welcome the introduction of a “high-quality” principle in the standardised approach and the phase-in application of input floors under the IRB approach. With respect to real estate exposures, we do not see the need for the newly introduced non-income producing real estate requirements to go beyond the Basel standards. Moreover we support the increased risk sensitivity for ADC lending. The Basel Committee had originally envisaged a threshold of EUR 100 billion measured in total notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives for the application of the simplified credit valuation adjustments (CVA) method. We suggest sticking to that provision. As regards the application of the credit conversion factor (CCF) to exposures for which an institution has received permission to estimate an LGD under the IRB approach in Article 166 Para 8 CRR3, it should be clarified that the CCF for defaulted exposures shall be set to zero in order to avoid double counting. A CCF of 20% should apply to trade finance instruments as the proposed changes are not in line with the Basel text and would have a negative impact on such crucial instruments for commerce. The proposed centralization of the disclosures for small and non-complex institutions is welcomed. Small and non-complex institutions should be exempted from reporting and disclosure requirements in the area of ESG risks. Further proportionality elements in the area of disclosures could be envisaged. Finally, the decision to maintain important EU features such as the SME and the Infrastructure supporting factors is appreciated. The same applies to the CVA exemptions. A more detailed feedback is available in the attached document. Our comments on Fit & Proper, ESG and supervisory powers can be found in the CRD paper.
Read full response

Response to Alignment of EU rules on capital requirements to international standards (review processes)

16 Feb 2022

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s CRD VI proposal as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and ESG risks. We would like to share the following considerations which we hope will be taken into account by the Commission. Regarding Fit & Proper, CRD VI introduces a harmonised approach of notifications and suitability assessments for members of management bodies (Articles 91a and 91b CRD) and heads of internal control functions ( Articles 91c and 91d CRD), consisting of a mandatory ex-ante notification and suitability assessment regime across the EU. ESBG is against this proposal because of the different nomination/selection process and particularities of the corporate law systems in the EU Member States. Although ex-ante assessment is already the norm in some Member States and it runs smoothly, there are some Member States, such as Germany, France, Austria, Italy, where the ex-ante assessment proposed by the Commission is not possible for some credit institutions, as some credit institutions have little to no influence on the recruitment process of members of the supervisory board. In some Member States, any internal assessment of supervisory board members by the institution would even contravene national laws. For the reasons in the paragraph above, ESBG advocates to keep the Fit and Proper legislation as it is found in the CRD V text, and not make any changes in CRD VI. While in many areas the harmonisation of legal requirements across the EU is reasonable, in this case regarding fit & proper the ex-ante / ex-post assessment process should remain a choice at national level, in order to reduce the high administrative burden that banks, and in some cases national governments, would face in the event of a change to just one assessment type: ex-ante. Both types of assessment must continue to be allowed for a smooth nomination/selection process across the EU, to have a diverse banking sector allowing for different business models and maintain national discretions. Regarding Key Function Holders, ESBG believes that it is not necessary to introduce an assessment framework into the CRD. The current requirements stipulated by the Joint ESMA-EBA guidelines on the assessment of the suitability members of the management body and key function holders are adequate and should be therefore maintained. In the area of ESG, institutions have a direct interest in supporting the transition to a sustainable economy. However, the tasks of banking supervisors may not be extended to urging institutions to adapt their business models to the respective Union’s policy objectives or to “broader transition trends”. Since there are no methodologies or industry standards for the quantification of the exposure at a more granular ESG risk level (i.e. social risk or governance risk), we would propose to disregard this. Furthermore, we propose to skip the specification of the time the specification of the time horizons for the ICAAP as Art. 76 (1) already contains a requirement to consider also medium and long-term impacts of ESG factors within the strategies. Concerning supervisory powers, we doubt that the proposed notification/approval requirements and additional supervisory powers will effectively improve the current supervisory framework and avoid undue administrative burden. The Commission (and the supervisory authorities) should rather perform an assessment of simplifying and reducing complexity in the current acquisitions framework in the financial sector. With regard to the components of Internal Capital (ICAAP), it has to be clarified in Article 73 CRD that the internal capital for ICAAP can consist of all eligible own funds according to the CRR as well as of economically comparable components or - alternatively - of the institution’s net present value assets. More detailed comments are available in the attached consultation response.
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

10 Jan 2022 · MiFID, retail investment strategy

Response to EU Standard for Green Bond

27 Sept 2021

ESBG applauds the EU's efforts to develop a binding and consistent green bond standard that is linked to the EU Taxonomy. Below you may find some concerns with the current proposal: • The number of organizational requirements in the proposal (fifty provisions deal with the legal framework of external reviewers and other supervisory powers while only thirteen deal with the green bond itself ) exceed the purpose of the Regulation. Also, we are concerned that smaller reviewers may be unable to meet all requirements, leaving only a few larger organizations (the "Big 4"), limiting options and potentially leading to monopoly positions. • Although the Taxonomy focuses on two types of asset financing, i.e. financing of Taxonomy-aligned activities or projects, and non-specialized corporate financing of firms with a Taxonomy-aligned corporate goal, the latter seems to be excluded from the proposed EUGBS. All corporate financing to companies aligned with the taxonomy's objectives should be considered eligible, even if the funds aren't allocated to a taxonomy-aligned activity or project. • Achieving 100% taxonomy compliance for the use of proceeds allocation will be too difficult, especially as technical screening criteria for the remaining four taxonomy objectives are still under development. It would be also particularly difficult for an issuer to report on their impact using undeveloped quantitative metrics and thresholds. Although reporting is more manageable for a few major issuers through huge upfront investments in IT infrastructure and greater communication, this is not the case for most issuers (including very large ones). • The label is not fully grandfathered for the whole maturity of the bond, and issuers are given 5 years to amend the use of proceeds allocation based on the updated Taxonomy technical screening criteria. Thus, projects that were eligible for an allocation before the criteria’s amendment would have to be refinanced, the issuer would have to find new "green" uses of proceeds or, bond proceeds would have to be repaid in the worst-case scenario. This creates uncertainty for both issuers and investors and could lead to mistrust of the label and a reluctance to invest in transitional activities, which are more susceptible to taxonomy changes. Also, there is a lack of guidance on practical implementation issues, such as whether the issuer must distribute funds to new eligible projects, what an issuer must do and what happens to existing bonds if no new eligible projects are found, the obligation’s timeframe, etc. • Prohibiting the costs of issuing a green bond to be covered by the proceeds of the issuance, contrary to what ICMA Green Bond Principles allow, would add unnecessary complexity by requiring the search for alternative sources of funding, and lower the attractiveness of EUGBS. It would also have accounting implications as well as raise questions about whether such a cost is an allowable expense for determining the issuer's tax liability. • The proposed green bond factsheet requires the disclosure of many details prior to issuance, which may limit issuers' ability to tap the market with flexibility. Also, further guidance on the process and the timing is needed. • The supervisory powers of ESMA, including administrative sanctions and inspection rights, go beyond the scope of the Regulation. • All issuers, whether financial institutions, companies, or public agencies, should be treated equally. We don’t agree with sovereigns’ flexibility and the preferential treatment of external reviewers as public auditors have an inherent and inescapable conflict of interest that equates to self-auditing.
Read full response

Response to Quick Fix to the UCITS Directive

9 Sept 2021

The European Commission recently adopted amendments to the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Regulation and the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive. However, in contrast to earlier plans, the adoption of the revised Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 has been postponed. Despite this fragmented process, the European Commission is proposing to maintain 1 July 2022 as the date of application of the new requirements to all product manufacturers, including those offering multi-option products (MOPs) with UCITS as underlying investment options. The unexpected delay in the adoption of the revised PRIIPs RTS would cut the implementation period for the industry by three months. This leaves PRIIPs manufacturers and distributors with only nine months instead of the original timeframe of 12 months to implement the new rules. The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA), European Association of Co-operative Banks (EACB) and European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG)are, therefore, asking the European co-legislators to ensure that the financial industry has a reasonable twelve months to implement the new rules by 31 December 2022 (instead of 1 July 2022). This request for postponement is based on the assumption that the revised RTS are published in the EU Official Journal, at the very latest, by 31 December 2021. To follow through on this request, the timelines in the PRIIPs and UCITS quick fixes must be aligned: With regards to the UCITS ‘quick fixes, we are, asking the European co-legislators to change Article 2 to allow Member States until 31 December 2022 (instead of 30 June 2022) for the adoption and the publication of the measures, and that these come into effect from 1 January 2023 (instead of 1 July 2022). Moreover, the requirement to produce a UCITS KIID is maintained for professional investors. We regret this approach, as professional investors do not require the same level of protection as retail investors; they get much more detailed information, and more frequently, tailored to their needs. Maintaining the UCITS KIID for institutional investors will cause unnecessary costs and efforts, which would be needed for other projects or initiatives. Bearing in mind the goals of an efficient Capital Markets Union in Europe, we invite the European legislators to consider abolishing the UCITS KIID (and PRIIPs KID) for professional investors. Should professional investors even have the choice to receive a UCITS KIID or PRIIP KID, a PRIIP KID may need to be produced for professional investors, which is contrary to the wording of the PRIIPs Regulation (such as Recital 7 which states that “Investment funds dedicated to institutional investors are excluded from the scope since they are not for sale to retail investors.”) and which would create unnecessary costs. To date, no PRIIPs KIDs are produced for share classes reserved for professional investors and also professional investors do not receive a PRIIPs KID since the obligation is only triggered where the product is bought by a retail investor.
Read full response

Response to Quick fix to the PRIIPs Regulation

9 Sept 2021

The European Commission’s proposal to maintain 1 July 2022 as the date the new Level 1 and Level 2 requirements apply to all product manufacturers, despite the delay in publication of the RTS, cuts the implementation period for the industry by more than 2 months. The proposed implementation period is too short, especially for new rules that relate to communication with investors and potential investors. To achieve better trust and understanding among investors and potential investors, the market needs time to adapt and get it right first time and avoiding confusion, to the detriment of consumers and Europe’s economy. Implementing changes involves numerous departments and competences to interpret the new requirements; gather new data; make actuarial and financial calculations; properly plan and make changes to IT; redesign templates; test the calculations and design; legally assess the narratives and figures; translate them; adapt training for staff and distributors; and implement new website disclosure requirements, etc. The many stakeholders in the value chain are involved in implementation. Many PRIIPs sold by insurers are MOPs that provide investors with a combination of different underlying funds. Where these are UCITS, insurers need the data and documents produced by UCITS providers to comply. As the new rules apply to both insurers and UCITS providers, MOPs providers will need sufficient time to collect the data from UCITS providers — once available - and update all their existing pre-contractual information for MOPs, update and store all KIDs on their websites, etc. This requires extensive dialogue between insurers and asset managers to agree the practicalities of data exchanges. Too short an implementation period could lead to poor implementation or force operators to suspend the distribution of certain products, which would be detrimental to consumers’ participation in the capital markets and trust in the information they receive. To ensure an orderly implementation, we urge for a 12-month implementation period from the adoption of the RTS proposals as the minimum time needed for all products and all market participants. A synchronised application date for all products (IBIPs, UCITS, MOPs, etc.) and providers (insurers, asset managers, etc.) for both the Level 1 and Level 2 amendments is key. In particular, Article 18 of the current PRIIPs RTS - which allows insurers to rely on the derogation in Article 14(2) of the PRIIPs RTS and to use the UCITS KIIDs for the provision of information on underlying funds for MOPs - is independent of any changes to the date of application of the UCITS exemption. The extension of the UCITS exemption will therefore not prevent Article 14(2) from expiring in December 2021, as currently stated in Article 18. This would pose significant practical difficulties for providers currently making use of the derogation in Article 14(2), as they would be required to produce their own PRIIPs KIDs for each underlying fund by the end of this year. This would also entail a substantial compliance burden for insurers and asset managers. They would need to produce entirely new data to populate the PRIIPs KIDs by a deadline that is much too short, and where the data simply could not be produced on time, the range of products offered to consumers would ultimately decrease. To ensure a consistent transitional regime across providers, the necessary legal certainty while UCITS remain exempted from the PRIIPs Regulation and a smooth implementation of the new PRIIPs RTS, we therefore reiterate the importance to align the expiry date of Article 18 of the PRIIPs RTS with the new end date of the UCITS exemption. As the scrutiny of the revised RTS by the co-legislators will take some time, we would also appreciate an expedited procedure by the co-legislators to facilitate publication in the EU Official Journal as soon as possible.
Read full response

Response to Designation of a statutory replacement rate for CHF LIBOR (Benchmarks)

31 Aug 2021

Introduction ESBG acknowledges the relevance and impact of the powers given to the European Commission (“EC”) under the recent amendment of the Benchmark Regulation by the Regulation 2021/168 in order to designate a statutory replacement rate for, among others, a critical benchmark under a discontinuation / non-representativeness scenario as it is the case for LIBOR. We consider that these powers are essential to prevent unprecedented contractual disruption and they should contribute to maintain financial stability and customer protection in the EU and ensure a smooth transition when benchmarks (as relevant as LIBOR) are discontinued. We assess that the exposure of mortgage credits based on LIBOR CHF in some Member States fulfils the premise of a significant disruption to the functioning of financial markets in the European Union. Considering the amount of credits and their specificity, we consider cessation of LIBOR CHF as a high-risk factor. There is a high risk of disruption of the functioning of financial markets in the whole European Union without resolving the above referred problem as LIBOR CHF is used as a benchmark not only for the retail credits, mortgage credits and loans granted to small businesses, the cessation of this reference rate could have an impact also on other agreements with no fall-back clauses or where fall-backs are unsuitable. This situation will be solved with the current drafting of Article 1 of the Implementing Regulation which sets out that the replacement of CHF LIBOR will be used as replacement for the CHF LIBOR in references to contracts and financial instruments as referred to in Article 23 a of Benchmark Regulation. However, we would like to emphasize that the Implementing Act should explicitly mention that the EC refers to SARON last reset published by SIX on their website. This explicit references will allow a clear reference without any uncertainty. Proposal Article 1 – Replacement of CHF LIBOR Clarification regarding the subsidiarity of the Implementing Act It is already stated in Article 23b para. 3 of the Amending Regulation ((EU) 2021/168) that the statutory fall-back rate only applies if no or no suitable fall-back provision exists. Nevertheless, we consider a corresponding reference in the Implementing Act to be useful. This would significantly increase the legal understanding of the norm addressees and in practice. Tenors We consider that designating statutory replacement rate for CHF LIBOR and most of its corresponding tenors is crucial to mitigate impacts on financial stability of the LIBOR discontinuation, avoid potential contract disruptions and to protect the consumers. Spread Adjustment It is significantly important that the spread adjustment is directly reflected in the Implementing Act because it allows public availability of information on SARON rates. Article 2 (and recital 22 Implementing Act)– Information sharing Furthermore, we would like to suggest that the (senseful) information requirement should provide this information electronically to all affected clients in a timely manner, i.e. also to private clients and smaller counterparties. This also seems appropriate, especially against the background of advancing digitalization and customer expectations with regard to a sustainable performance of the banking industry. Therefore, we propose to delete the passage tin writing". Final remarks The CHF LIBOR will be discontinued on 31 December 2021, there is little time left. For the remaining contractual relationships, the Implementing Act will be decisive. In order to ensure a smooth changeover to the statutory fall-back rate, appropriate preparations must be made. Therefore, it would be very helpful if the Implementing Act would be finalized as soon as possible.
Read full response

Response to Designation of a statutory replacement rate for EONIA (Benchmark)

31 Aug 2021

Introduction ESBG welcomes the EU Commission's move to adopt an Implementing Act to replace the EONIA. Currently, numerous contracts with EONIA reference have been and are being converted. Due to the large market distribution, a complete conversion of all contractual relationships by the deadline will hardly be possible. Therefore, the Implementing Act will allow for an adequate handling of those cases, that could not be converted until then. This step will provide considerably more legal certainty and clarity as well as it will prevent market distortions. The proposed replacement of the EONIA by the €STR combined with a spread adjustment in all relevant contracts seems appropriate. This solution will perpetuated the existing calculation method used since 2 October 2019. This is consistent. Since the market still recognizes the €STR administered by the European Central Bank and the spread of 8.5 basis points. Proposal Article 1 Replacement of EONIA First, we consider that it would be useful to clarify the scope of the Implementing Regulation in order avoiding misinterpretations of what contracts and financial instruments are subject to Article 23 a) of BMR and therefore to the Implementing Regulation. We propose the following amendment to Article 1 (1): “Article 1 Replacement of EONIA 1. The Euro short-term rate (€STR) as published by the European Central Bank is designated as replacement for the European overnight index average (EONIA) in references to EONIA in any contracts and financial instruments as defined in Directive 2014/65/EU, that references a benchmark and is subject to the law of one of the Member States; and any contract, the parties to which are all established in the Union, that references a benchmark and that is subject to the law of a third country and where that law does not provide for the orderly wind-down of a benchmark, as referred to in Article 23a of Regulation (EU) 2016/1011.” In Article 23b para. 3 of the Amending Regulation ((EU) 2021/168), the priority of suitable fall-back provisions was stipulated. However, a corresponding clarification should also be included in the Implementing Act. This would make it easier for the norm addressees to understand and apply the legal framework. In addition, we would like to suggest that the date of application of the Implementing Act be re-examined. As we understand it, critical benchmarks such as the EONIA may only be used until 31 December 2021 in accordance with Art. 51 para. 4b of the Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2089. Even though EMMI has announced a publication of the EONIA by 3 January 2022, it does not seem permissible to us to use it until then on the basis of an Implementing Act. Although our members will continue to work intensively on reducing the number of EONIA-related contracts, the Implementing Act will nevertheless play an essential role for those contractual relationships that could not be converted in time. In order to enable a corresponding conversion to the statutory replacement rate as quickly as possible, a timely finalization of the Implementing Act would be very helpful.
Read full response

Response to Consumer Credit Agreement – review of EU rules

30 Aug 2021

Please find attached the European Savings and Retail Banking Group's response to this public consultation. ESBG represents the locally focused European banking sector, helping savings and retail banks in 21 European countries strengthen their unique approach that focuses on providing service to local communities and boosting SMEs. An advocate for a proportionate approach to banking rules, ESBG unites at EU level some 900 banks, which together employ more than 650,000 people driven to innovate at roughly 50,000 outlets. ESBG members have total assets of €5.3 trillion, provide €1 trillion in corporate loans (including to SMEs), and serve 150 million Europeans seeking retail banking services. ESBG members are committed to further unleash the promise of sustainable, responsible 21st century banking.
Read full response

Response to European Digital Identity (EUid)

30 Aug 2021

Extract of full doc in Annex The European Credit Sector Associations welcome the proposal for a regulation establishing a framework for a EU Digital Identity and the high ambitions presented in the initiative as a positive development. The Commission proposal aims to provide an ecosystem of credentials leveraging a new wallet architecture of several ID solutions. The wallet architecture with its underlying principles can further increase innovation within the financial industry, primarily benefitting all European businesses and citizens. The decentralised model fosters personal autonomy and increased personal data protection, giving users control over their identity attributes. We believe the proposal will incentivise Member States to be more expedient in developing e-ID solutions with a wide scope of usage and potentially much higher adoption rate. It also provides grounds for some attributes to be validated against public sources. This is a welcome development, particularly as regards processes where a high level of assurance is necessary, e.g., the KYC process. When acting as relying parties, banks should be aware of the chain of trust in data sharing (including actors involved) and should be able to promptly check the validity of credentials. The European digital identity will make it possible to offer quicker onboarding processes and better user experience while ensuring the same level of security as face-to-face onboarding processes. In the end it will contribute to further adoption of digital banking services. We appreciate that the Commission recognises the special role of the financial sector, particularly regarding the AML/CFT framework. We emphasise that cooperation between the European Institutions, Member States and the private sector, including existing e-ID schemes, is needed. To achieve this objective, Member States should cooperate within the Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a Common Toolbox, where we believe that the European Digital Identity should build on existing (and upcoming) national notified e-ID solutions and extend the possibility for their use to the private sector, respecting current solutions and a level playing field. However, the private sector should be enabled to accept the DIW provided that there are adequate safeguards and an in-depth assessment of the possible aspects of the measures adopted. Even if concerned for the wide scope of use-cases and the related costs to implement it in practice, we believe that the banking sector also needs to be involved in the toolbox, as it can play the important role of partner for the EU and all Member States in building up an adoption roadmap for the success of the initiative. It will be key to establish a common technical architecture that enables the private sector to integrate any wallet that can be developed within this regulatory framework without additional technical effort, regardless of where they are issued. We believe that the outcome of the Toolbox should be a unique common, openly available standard that enables the development of multiple, interoperable e-ID solutions and which incentivises private sector schemes to participate. The standard should be applied by both public institutions and private companies. The financial industry should play an important role in the ecosystem, in the design and implementation of the wallet. While pursuing a neutral position on the technology used, we believe that the use of the attributes of eIDAS digital identities can be enabled, also using the support of innovative technologies such as DLT, to allow the subscription of new services including banking services. The financial services sector has sound policies and regulations in place to be trusted data custodians and are capable of securely managing digital identity data attributes. Banks should also be allowed to provide their own wallets and integrate ID wallets into their banking apps, without the burden of a separation of data storage.
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

5 Aug 2021

Please find attached the ESBG feedback on the European Commission's draft Artificial Intelligence Act.
Read full response

European savings banks urge delay in green asset reporting

2 Jun 2021
Topic — New rules for how banks report their business activities' environmental sustainability.
Message — The group requests a postponement of the reporting deadline and a phased approach for disclosures. They also argue for excluding assets from calculations when historical sustainability data is unavailable.12
Why — These changes would reduce compliance costs and prevent banks from appearing unfairly penalized for lack of data.34
Impact — Investors and the public lose immediate transparency regarding how banks are transitioning toward sustainable investments.5
Read full response

European savings banks urge protection of commission-based advice

18 May 2021
Topic — The strategy aims to boost retail investor participation in EU capital markets.
Message — ESBG demands consistency between different regulations to fix contradictory cost disclosures. They strongly argue that the commission-based model be maintained to ensure affordable advice. Additionally, they request that placement fees remain outside the scope of inducement rules.123
Why — Maintaining current rules protects bank profits from placement fees and commission-based services.45
Impact — Small-scale investors lose access to professional guidance due to high fee-based costs.6
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

3 May 2021 · Financial Education.

Response to Instant Payments

7 Apr 2021

ESBG and its Members fully support efforts to increase the uptake of SCTInst and share the view that it could facilitate stronger and more integrated homegrown pan-EU payment solutions. The EC should foster an environment that enables the uptake of instant payments, e.g. by favoring market-led developments and limiting any eventual action to the building blocks needed for widespread adoption of SCTInst and the resolution of any hindering factors. EU banks should be free to adhere on a voluntary basis to the SCT Inst scheme based on a strong business case. If adherence were mandated via legislation, PSPs must be given a sufficiently lengthy rollout period due to technical build and consumer considerations. The EC should also carefully consider the needs and costs of SCTInst for non-euro markets/PSPs and for those players who have very specific or ‘niche’ customers who do not need instant. Instead, adherence levels should be measured in terms of reachable payment accounts, rather than in terms of adhering banks. Forcing small PSPs to adhere may result in a very small amount of additional payment accounts being reached. The EC should focus on building an environment that supports the industry efforts to develop value-added products and solutions based on SCTInst. A strong business model and a clear, stable regulatory environment workable from both an economic and competition perspectives are key to ensure PSPs will want to adhere, develop and promote the use of SCTInst. To offer use-cases other than account-to-account instant credit transfer between PSUs, banks need to build interoperable front-end solutions for payers and payees adapted to the concrete use cases. The EC should also bear in mind that the lack of ability by corporates to process received SCTInst transactions in real time could create unrealistic expectations on customers (especially for transactions where an instant payment creates the belief of a corporate taking immediate action). SCTInst should be considered the basis of new payment instruments, with different use cases, advantages and disadvantages and any legislative action should duly consider this. SCTInst is not to be compared to any other payment instrument in a straightforward manner, as they can have some characteristics of a traditional SCT and a card payment, or its usage could be envisaged in situations currently served by SDD, cash or cheques. It is not useful to draw full parallels between SCTInst and any other existing payment instrument. Further, as instant payments are currently a viable solution only to a limited selection of use cases, we disagree on the assumption that its full uptake would also foster financial inclusion. In terms of pricing, we do not consider there are grounds to regulate them, as it is not done for any other service: 1) costs of implementing the necessary infrastructure have shown to be different than for any other payment means; 2) charges for individual SCT transactions may not reflect the actual charges: PSUs may pay for SCT transactions in bulk in their annual/monthly payment account fees; 3) charges for SCTInst are co-dependent on the SCTInst payment instrument business model and the level of consumer protection and merchant guarantees given. Increasing the already high levels of consumer protection it via a potential chargeback system would create additional rules, processes and costs for the processing of SCTInst. Regulating the prices -especially if such regulation were not related to costs- would create an unlevel playing field between SCTInst and other payment methods and place banks at a disadvantage in relation to other players in the payments market. Depriving banks from reaping the benefits of their investments in SCTInst infrastructure would weaken banks’ competitive position in the market. Finally, the EC should assess how to improve the current EU sanctions screening, AML/CTF, fraud prevention and detection rules and processes to adapt them to SCTInst.
Read full response

European retail banks seek flexible taxonomy rules for buildings

18 Dec 2020
Topic — The European Commission is establishing technical criteria to define environmentally sustainable economic activities.
Message — The group urges the Commission to classify renovation loans as transition activities and maintain building criteria at the top 15 percent energy performance level. They also call for a phased approach to transparency requirements and the use of national sources for agricultural impact reporting.123
Why — These changes would prevent a massive reduction in eligible green buildings and financial products.4
Impact — Member states with higher energy standards face penalties from non-harmonized building certificates.5
Read full response

Response to Long Term Investment Funds – Review of EU rules

14 Oct 2020

Review highlights three main areas: 1) Removing limitations on the supply side by improving the fund structuring and eligible assets related aspects of the ELTIF framework. We support this in principle – however, the specification of which assets can be invested should not be too much softened. We believe that the focus should continue to be on private market investments and that any liquid instruments should be allowed only to a limited extent. The possibility of setting up a fund of funds under the ELTIF framework would be an interesting option. I. e. Investments of the fund of funds would be private markets target funds (in the ELTIF, EuVECA, EuSEF format but perhaps also to a limited extent private market funds that are not subject to these frameworks). 2) Reducing the demand side barriers to investment (with a focus on retail investors but also including the institutional investor base). From a sales point of view, measures of this category are generally deemed helpful, especially in view of the fact that in a low interest rate environment ELTIFs could contribute to improve the clients’ yield. However, as far as retail investors are concerned, we also find some proposals rather critical. Minimum entry ticket is currently at EUR 10,000, - in our opinion low enough. We do not think it is the right way to introduce more frequent redemption optionality and listed ELTIFs. The private markets asset class is illiquid and this main feature should be conveyed to investors in the same way. However we would appreciate the alignment of national measures relating to the retail investor passport for ELTIFs by reducing national discretions, clarifying the ELTIF requirements for the assessment of the knowledge and experience of retail investors. In our view, an additional incentive would be to further reduce the capital requirements for ELTIFs under Solvency II (better for EU private equity AIFs in general). 3) The introduction of incentives by Member States to promote ELTIF investment. We would definitely support that.
Read full response

ESBG urges proportionate reporting and transaction thresholds for banks

8 Sept 2020
Topic — The consultation defines how banks and large companies disclose their taxonomy-aligned activities.
Message — ESBG requests bank-specific reporting definitions and transaction thresholds to manage compliance costs. They suggest limiting reporting to new business and using a centralized data register.1234
Why — Specific rules for financial institutions would minimize the high transaction costs of compliance.5
Impact — SMEs face high bureaucracy costs if banks are required to collect data from them.6
Read full response

Response to Consumer Credit Agreement – review of EU rules

31 Aug 2020

Please find attached the response from the European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) in the form of a position paper.
Read full response

European retail banks urge harmonized sustainability rules for advice

7 Jul 2020
Topic — Update of MiFID II rules regarding sustainability preferences in investment advice.
Message — Exclude derivatives from the scope as they are primarily used for hedging business risks. Requirements for sustainable products must be harmonized to ensure a strategy product is not treated as unsustainable. Banking rules should treat sustainability as a risk driver rather than a separate risk type.123
Why — Avoiding separate risk categories reduces administrative complexity and lowers overall compliance costs.45
Impact — Clients would be unable to align their derivative-based hedging strategies with sustainability preferences.6
Read full response

European savings banks urge harmonized sustainability rules and deadlines

6 Jul 2020
Topic — Consultation on clarifying sustainability risks and factors for investment product governance.
Message — The group calls for alignment between different EU investment rules to avoid conflicting labels. They request that target markets remain broad to prevent overwhelming clients with complex questions. Finally, they advocate for a single implementation date across different sustainable finance laws.123
Why — Aligning rules reduces the administrative burden and technical complexity of labeling financial products.4
Impact — Inconsistent deadlines and complex questions could confuse retail investors or cause misinformation.5
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and

28 May 2020 · COVID-19 relief measures

Response to Review of the Benchmark Regulation

15 Apr 2020

ESBG supports the Commission’s approach on a revision of the Benchmark Regulation (BMR). The main objective should be granting broader powers to competent authorities at national level or Europe-an to ensure an orderly cessation of a critical benchmark, these powers should include the mandate to continue granting the provision of a critical benchmark using a different methodology or a replacement rate. The introduction of those powers is crucial in order to avoid significant market disruption and ex-tensive litigation and reduce legal risk. The BMR should grant customised powers to competent authorities to ensure the orderly transition from a critical benchmark to a replacement rate. For legacy contracts, competent authorities should decide the replacement rate or the maintenance of the old IBOR rate. Without providing these measures, the IBOR transition process can result in a risk to financial stability, a major legal risk for financial entities due to contract frustration and without doubt could cause detriment to investors. We welcome the extension of the powers of the NCAs or ESMA, so that they can determine the re-placement rate and also allow the use of non-compliant benchmarks in legacy contracts particularly in those contracts that do not contain a specific fallback provision (silent contracts) or the applicable clause is either not appropriate or not workable. Benchmark users should be allowed to continue using such benchmark in certain circumstances avoiding its automatic cessation, in order to ensure the continuity of the contracts using such benchmark as a reference. This provision could be established either for users of certain products or transactions that may prove impossible to modify (e.g. mortgage loans), or for a sufficient period of time which allows its replacement by another benchmark. The above proposals refer to the application of fallback provisions, whereas an alternative BMR amendment could be empowering ESMA (Article 23.6 d) of BMR) in specific events to compel the relevant administrator of a critical benchmark to introduce specific changes to the methodology of such a benchmark, in order to become a tracker of another benchmark, for instance the rate recommended by a risk free rates working group, plus an adjustment spread, thus ensuring the continuity of such a benchmark. The relevant amendment could also require confirmation by ESMA that the amended methodology still measures the same underlying interest, to ensure certainty for users and market participants in general. In order to give more certainty to benchmark users, we consider that additional powers should be granted to competent authorities: • When approving a change in the methodology of a benchmark. The relevant authorisation should explicitly state whether or not the identity of the benchmark has been altered and whether or not such benchmark continues to measure the same economic reality, in order to give more certainty to benchmark users (customers and institutions). • New formulas to incorporate additional banks into the panel of a benchmark on a permanent basis should be available to competent authorities when persuasion mechanisms used for the in-corporation of new panel members (Article 23 BMR) have not been successful, in order to achieve a more stable and representative panel. We would like also to propose that the review should introduce a further prolongation of the transitional period for critical benchmarks to that one introduced by the amending Regulation on sustainability-related benchmarks (EU 2019/2089). A long transition period is required so that all legal and technical precautions necessary for such a transition can be completed without disruption. An extension of the transition period by a further 12 months until 31.12.2022 would bring significant relief for market participants (Art 51 of BMR should be amended accordingly).
Read full response

European Savings Banks urge EU to cut investment information requirements

16 Mar 2020
Topic — The consultation reviews EU rules for investment firms to improve market efficiency and investor protection.
Message — ESBG calls for exemptions from cost disclosures for professional clients and an option to waive phone recordings. They also demand the preservation of commission-based advice to ensure investment access for lower-income groups.123
Why — Reducing these requirements would lower their operational costs and help recover lost telephone business.45
Impact — Retail clients lose the security of recorded evidence and detailed cost information for transparency.6
Read full response

Response to Action Plan on anti-money laundering

11 Mar 2020

ESBG fully supports preventing money laundering and curbing terrorist financing. In ESBG’s view, an urgent and useful next step is an enhanced cooperation between supervisors and regulators as well as a strengthened dialogue between them and the banking industry. It is also key to monitor and assess the proper implementation of the last AML Directives and the ESAs review. The adoption of an EU Regulation could be a way to help clarify the grey zones in the existing rule-book and would allow banks that operate cross-border to develop common EU-wide AML/CFT policies and processes, create synergies and facilitate effective cross-border supervision. Supervisory fragmentation could be addressed by the creation of an independent EU body/authority with a clear AML/CFT mandate, or by giving an existing EU authority a deeper AML/CFT mandate, always taking into account also the national specificities. ESBG is supportive of harmonised guidance, better coordinated implementation and unified supervisory practices across the EU, leveraging the experience and expertise of national supervisors as well as banking institutions in this field. NCAs and Obliged Entities to start building up respective know-how. ESBG believes that there is need to develop an additional new set of skills and capabilities such as statistics, mathematics and IT, including Big Data and Transaction Monitoring. Encouragement to declare Innovative Technologies/Approaches as best practices in the EU. ESBG believes that the EC should promote new innovative approaches by encouraging a broader development of ML detection algorithms to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of AML Monitoring and CFT Screening. Enhance AML regulatory framework to specifically regulate more and grant controlled Personal Data Access and exchange between and within Public Authorities and Financial Services to fight crime (even without explicit customer consent). Enhance exchange between banking groups, and between banking groups and public authorities. ESBG calls on the EC to develop a Communication on the usage of Big Data in Anti-Financial Crime analytics and production, which will include an assessment and proposal to adapt the legal framework. Evaluate EU centralized AML/Sanction utility, which gathers all necessary/transaction data and apply advanced analytics to detect Financial Crime. EU legislator should be very cautious of any duplicate work the national authorities already do. In that regard, it is therefore of the utmost importance that centralisation does not come at the cost of efficiency. ESBG suggests that synergies are tapped into, to avoid additional reporting burdens and cost efficiencies on the industry, including potential duplicate procedures and overlapping of competencies and work between national and EU entities whilst ensuring that the monitoring regime is strengthened. ESBG encourages EU regulators to continue identifying AML risk related to crypto-assets, wallet services providers and other assets providing a high level of anonymity, and also encourages the establishment of an appropriate legal framework. In addition, ESBG still observes some cases where applying AML and CTF measures is difficult: • International transfers, of which the amount is increasing hugely, to/from countries with a low level of bank secrecy protection to/from offshore jurisdictions; • Schemes using payment accounts of newly incorporated legal entities, which simulate big investment interests, order to transfer a big cash flow all at once for money laundering purposes. Finally, ESBG aims for a high level of assurance approach for electronic KYC in the financial services sector based on governmental eIDAS, and would like to encourage the EC to put forward a common regulatory approach for customer identification and due diligence processes when performed remotely (see reports prepared by the EC Expert Group on Electronic Identification and remote Know-your-customer processes)
Read full response

ESBG urges EU to tailor Climate Law for retail banks

4 Feb 2020
Topic — This consultation seeks to enshrine climate neutrality goals into binding European legislation.
Message — ESBG urges regulators to distinguish retail banking from wholesale activities. They recommend including cost-benefit analyses to align climate goals with social objectives.12
Why — A simplified framework would reduce compliance costs and prevent sudden market shocks.3
Read full response

Response to Directive/regulation establishing a European framework for markets in crypto assets

16 Jan 2020

ESBG supports the establishment of an EU regulatory framework for crypto-asset markets as a key priority; especially as crypto-assets are currently not covered by current EU-legislation. As the main features that constitute a crypto-asset are of a digital/virtual nature, relying on cryptography and use of DLT, the question of the legal nature of the, the difference between asset and technology, and the possible stabilisation mechanisms behind the crypto-asset need to be considered. Based on the EBA and ESMA opinions, ESBG supports that the comprehensive regulatory regime for crypto-assets shall include license requirements for cryptocurrency service providers, a more comprehensive set of rules aiming at protecting ordinary consumers and investors, and the creation of an entity that is accountable to the regulator (‘scheme governance authority’). Therefore, to address specific risks stemming from Crypto-assets, ESBG supports targeted amendments to sectoral legislation (e.g. Prospectus regulation, AML and/or MIFID II). Therefore, policy makers need to regulate the areas where the policy framework is still not clear or non-existent, or where it needs some sort of adaptation. As a first step, to be treated uniformly across member states, a clear definition and classification of different crypto-assets is needed. After this classification, an assessment must be made as to what extent the current legislative framework can provide an effective set of rules for these different crypto-asset classes. Simultaneously, a narrow and restrictive definition should be avoided as this could hinder digital innovation or transformation. ESBG is concerned by the abuse of retail investors’ trust and the emergence of highways circumventing policy frameworks which were carefully crafted over the last decades. ESBG would like to make the following reflections : • International coordination and consensus on policy is needed to capture risks posed by crypto-assets (e.g. in areas of financial stability, monetary policy, AML or CFT) and to ensure a level playing field across markets. • Market venues for virtual currencies and tokens need to be regulated; including requirements on price transparency, systems against money laundering and information disclosure. • Adapting the regulatory framework for ICOs’ application, the secondary markets and the platforms where crypto-assets are exchanged, is of great importance in order to integrate ICOs on the diverse set of rules applying to other forms of raising capital. • It is necessary to ensure a single supervisory approach on ICOs in order to guarantee the transparency of operations and the origin of funds. • The growing risks, stemming from the impact cyber-attacks can have on the ICO market, need to be addressed, for instance when a crypto exchange has their crypto-currencies stolen. • The lack of clarity on which ‘white papers’ must be applied (e.g. in some cases the Prospectus Regulation may apply, but in others it may not, while sometimes even applying that Regulation might need an adaptation to the different technological environment). This lack of clarity often provokes non-existent due diligence performed by investors. • The anonymity of the wallet holders and the existence of blockchains specifically designed to ensure secrecy over the sender, the receiver and the amount transferred, create virtually risk-free ways of laundering money originating from criminal activities, or hiding the financing of terrorist organisations. EU legislators will have to find ways to ban cryptocurrencies designed to make users untraceable, and criminally sanction the malicious use of blockchain and DLT technology. ESBG also encourages EU regulators to continue identifying if other crypto-assets and services providers should be covered by the AMLD, and encourages the establishment of appropriate instruments enabling authorities to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Read full response

European retail banks urge clear criteria for sustainable investments

23 Aug 2018
Topic — Proposed EU rules clarifying sustainability duties for institutional investors and investment managers.
Message — First, establish a clear, binding definition for what constitutes a sustainable investment. Avoid creating new laws by instead supplementing existing sectoral financial regulations. The general application date should be extended from 12 to 24 months.123
Why — This approach would reduce legal liability risks and lower technical implementation costs.45
Impact — Individual investors face confusing information floods that delay advisory and order processes.67
Read full response

Response to Fairness in platform-to-business relations

29 Jun 2018

1. General One of the vital underpinnings of ESBG is responsible banking. To that end ESBG supports all legislative and other initiatives that benefit consumers as it is of great importance to ESBG that consumers feel that they are treated fairly. Only then can they genuinely be happy with the services provided to them by ESBG members. We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal for the Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services. However, we also have some concerns in relation thereto. You will find these described below. 2. Scope Recital 9 states some examples of online intermediation services covered by this Regulation. These include “online e-commerce market places, including collaborative ones on which business users are active, online software applications services and online social media services”. However, these types of services are neither mentioned in Article 1 (titled "Subject-matter and scope") nor defined in Article 2 ("Definitions"). 3. Ranking (Article 5) As stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 5, providers of online intermediation services and search engines must include in their terms and conditions a description of the main parameters determining ranking. Futhermore, as mentioned in Recital 17, “the notion of main parameter should be understood to refer to any general criteria, processes, specific signals incorporated into algorithms or other adjustment or demotion mechanisms used in connection with the ranking.” Therefore, transparency on ranking, including algorithms, may put the spotlight on the inner workings of online platforms and search engines in such a way that platforms will find it difficult to protect their “secret sauce” that algorithms have become. As a consequence, the relationship between innovation and algorithm transparency is clearly opposite: incentive for innovation declines as transparency requirements increase. Also, transparency of algorithms is expected to allow for better comparability, but standardisation of services provided through online platforms is usually near impossible. That is, ESBG feels that it needs to be taken into account that transparency within these business-to-business relationships is important but should not be overly prescriptive. It is reasonable that to maintain a trust-based relationship, platforms must increase their transparency and share more metrics with their business users, so they can objectively assess their performance through the platform and consider strategic decisions. However, we are of the view that this is not reason enough to require the public disclosure of algorithms that determine the ranking of services. Moreover, we would like to point out that even though the proposal aims to clarify that providers and search engines are not required to disclose any trade secrets, requiring platform operators and search engine providers to set out rankings may nevertheless entail interference in trade secrets. The safeguard clause contained in the draft Regulation may prove ineffective in this respect. Therefore, we would recommend introducing additional safeguards, since ESBG would not support an obligation for online platforms to disclose trade secrets such as algorithms.
Read full response

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

28 Jun 2018 · ESBG Retail Banking Lunch

Response to Safekeeping duties of depositaries for Alternative Investment Funds

26 Jun 2018

ESBG would like to submit the following comments regarding the draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2016/438 and the draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013, as regards safe-keeping duties of depositaries. I. GENERAL COMMENTS ESBG warmly welcomes the EU-Commission’s intention to achieve a healthy balance between the market efficiency and investor protection when proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/438 as regards safe-keeping duties of depositories. In ESBG’s opinion, the Commission proposals amending Delegated Regulations No 2016/438 and No 231/2013 are consistent with ESMA Opinion (20 July 2017) as regards the custody chain and the application of the rules relating delegation in the depositaries. In this sense, ESMA was inclined to require a level of segregation in line with the usual practice in many Member States, and of less depth to the one incorporated in the Article 99 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013. Therefore, in general terms ESBG welcomes the approach and scope of the proposals for regulatory amendment raised by the Commission. However, ESBG would like to make below further suggestions with regards to segregation to take better into account national situations. However, whereas the new controls on sub-custodians and the minimum content of the contracts may have a significant impact on existing legal relationships, ESBG believes that the date of application of both Delegated Regulations should be extended. Therefore ESBG proposes that the application date is from the first day of the twelve months after publication, instead of the first day of the sixth months as proposed by the Commission. II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION AMENDING DELEGATED REGULATION No 231/2013 (AIFM) Article 89. Safekeeping duties with regard to assets held in custody According to the amendment proposed by the Commission to Article 89.1 (c) regarding the frequency of the reconciliations, the term “on regular basis” have been replaced by “as often as necessary” and three parameters are proposed to determine that frequency. The first two parameters are related to the normal activity regarding the asset under consideration, but the third one would mean making a reconciliation each time the asset under consideration moves independently of whether the holder is the AIF itself or a third party. Therefore ESBG considers that the third parameter doesn’t introduce more security to the process and, on the contrary, it adds complexity and relevant costs for the entities that could result in a less effective and accurate reconciliation process. In conclusion, ESBG proposes the following amendment: “(1) Article 89 is amended as follows: (a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows: (i) point (c ) is replaced by the following: ‘(c) reconciliations are conducted as often as necessary between the depositary’s internal accounts and records and those of any third party to whom custody functions are delegated in accordance with Article 21(11) of Directive 2011/61/EU.’; (ii) the following second subparagraph is added: ‘In relation to point (c) of the first subparagraph, the frequency of the reconciliations shall be determined on the basis of the following: (a) the normal trading activity of the AIF; (b) any trade occurring outside the normal trading activity; Point (c) to be DELETED -->(c) any trade occurring on behalf of any other client whose assets are held by the third party in the same financial securities account as the assets of the AIF.’; [...] III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION AMENDING DELEGATED REGULATION No 2016/438 (UCITS) [...] Please find attached the full ESBG position paper.
Read full response

Response to Safekeeping duties of depositaries for UCITS funds

26 Jun 2018

ESBG would like to submit the following comments regarding the draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2016/438 and the draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013, as regards safe-keeping duties of depositaries. I. GENERAL COMMENTS ESBG warmly welcomes the EU-Commission’s intention to achieve a healthy balance between the market efficiency and investor protection when proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/438 as regards safe-keeping duties of depositories. In ESBG’s opinion, the Commission proposals amending Delegated Regulations No 2016/438 and No 231/2013 are consistent with ESMA Opinion (20 July 2017) as regards the custody chain and the application of the rules relating delegation in the depositaries. In this sense, ESMA was inclined to require a level of segregation in line with the usual practice in many Member States, and of less depth to the one incorporated in the Article 99 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013. Therefore, in general terms ESBG welcomes the approach and scope of the proposals for regulatory amendment raised by the Commission. However, ESBG would like to make below further suggestions with regards to segregation to take better into account national situations. However, whereas the new controls on sub-custodians and the minimum content of the contracts may have a significant impact on existing legal relationships, ESBG believes that the date of application of both Delegated Regulations should be extended. Therefore ESBG proposes that the application date is from the first day of the twelve months after publication, instead of the first day of the sixth months as proposed by the Commission. II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION AMENDING DELEGATED REGULATION No 231/2013 (AIFM) [...] III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION AMENDING DELEGATED REGULATION No 2016/438 (UCITS) Article 13. Safekeeping duties with regard to assets held in custody According to the amendment proposed by the Commission to Article 13.1 (c) regarding the frequency of the reconciliations, the term “on regular basis” have been replaced by “as frequently as necessary” and three parameters are proposed to determine that frequency. The first two parameters are related to the normal activity regarding the asset under consideration, but the third one would mean making a reconciliation each time the asset under consideration moves independently of whether the holder is the UCITS itself or a third party. Therefore ESBG considers that the third parameter doesn’t introduce more security to the process and, on the contrary, it adds complexity and relevant costs for the entities that could result in a less effective and accurate reconciliation process. In conclusion, ESBG proposes the following amendment: “(1) Article 13 is amended as follows: (a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows: (i) point (c ) is replaced by the following: ‘(c) reconciliations are conducted as frequently as necessary between the depositary’s internal accounts and records and those of any third party to whom safekeeping has been delegated in accordance with Article 22a of Directive 2009/65/EC.’; (ii) the following second subparagraph is added: ‘In relation to point (c) of the first subparagraph, the frequency of the reconciliations shall be determined on the basis of the following: (a) the normal trading activity of the UCITS; (b) any trade occurring outside the normal trading activity; --> Point (c) to be DELETED: (c) any trade occurring on behalf of any other client whose assets are held by the third party in the same financial securities account as the assets of the UCITS.’; [...] Please find attached the full ESBG response.
Read full response

ESBG warns against premature sustainability rules for retail banks

21 Jun 2018
Topic — New EU rules for integrating sustainability factors into investment advice and duties.
Message — ESBG recommends developing a complete taxonomy before implementing concrete regulatory measures. They urge the Commission to avoid putting the industry under unnecessary pressure. Sustainability preferences should not be prioritized over other client investment objectives.123
Why — Banks would avoid the high costs of modifying existing investment advice processes.4
Impact — Potential investors may have fewer sustainable options as banks limit their offerings.5
Read full response

Response to Development of secondary markets for non-performing loans

8 Jun 2018

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to provide our feedback to the Commission’s “Have your say” initiative on credit servicers, credit purchasers and the recovery of collateral. You will find below a short exceprt from our position (the full document is attached to this submission). I. Preliminary remarks The European Commission published its Proposal for a Directive on credit servicers, credit purchas-ers and the recovery of collateral (COM (2018) 135 final) on 14 March 2018. ESBG welcomes the efforts by the European Commission associated with the draft Directive to cre-ate a better framework for dealing with non-performing loans. However, the concrete proposals are not expedient and we, therefore, have concerns that the opposite effect will be achieved. Additionally, in our view, it will not be possible to eliminate the problem of prolonged proceedings to enforce loan collateral without a considerable improvement in the judicial systems of the Member States concerned – and hence also through measures instituted by those Member States. It is correct in principle that credit institutions must be given opportunities to recover loan collateral more efficiently and more quickly in order to avoid any accumulation of non-performing loans (NPLs). ESBG therefore supports the Commission’s goal of enhancing protection for secured credi-tors in the event of default by a borrower. We presume that enhanced protection for secured credi-tors and their loan collateral will also have a positive effect on borrowers and will thus give them easier and cheaper access to loans. Some Members States’ law is already likely to provide an instruments that allows creditor an oppor-tunity for prompt recovery through the possibility of submission to immediate enforcement. We pre-sumes that these instrument will continue to be available after the mechanism described in the draft Directive comes into force. No changes to the existing enforcement practice based on submission to immediate enforcement are necessary. However, we believe that the Accelerated Extrajudicial Collateral Enforcement (AECE) mechanism proposed in the draft Directive is not expedient, in particular in combination with the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to in-crease the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures (COM(2016) 723 – Re-structuring Directive). Rather, there is a risk that this can impair the supply of credit to the European real economy. We be-lieve that the combination of the two proposed directives will inevitably weaken the position of se-cured creditors and the protection of loan collateral. The banks will most likely see a drop in their proceeds from recovering collateral. The package of measures may also have a counterproductive effect by forcing the credit institutions to behave with even more restraint and greater risk-awareness when lending. This would see access to loans in future become both more difficult and more expen-sive. In ESBG’s view, it must be ensured that the new AECE enforcement mechanism does not negatively impact functioning national systems for collateral enforcement. For example, some Member’s States collateral enforcement system already works very well. It must therefore be ensured that Member States are not forced by the Directive to modify existing, well-functioning national systems for collat-eral enforcement. In particular it must be clarified that the AECE enforcement mechanism is not de-signed to replace existing national systems for collateral enforcement. Rather, the actual problem should be addressed, namely the inadequate functioning of some European judicial systems. An efficient judiciary is decisive for the accelerated enforcement of loan collateral.
Read full response

Response to Statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisioning for newly originated loans that turn non-performing

25 May 2018

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to provide our feedback to the Commission’s “Have your say” initiative on statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisioning for newly originated loans that turn non-performing. We would like to share with you the following reflections that we hope will be taken into account by the Commission.  Regulatory/supervisory context: Overall, ESBG thinks that introducing a prudential provi-sioning backstop for non-performing loans (NPLs) that goes beyond the requirements and audit processes of the accounting framework is superfluous. Efforts are underway to harmonise the ac-counting and prudential treatment in many areas. The proposed addendum to the NPLs guidance on the provisioning backstop establishes a significant discrepancy here for which there is no eco-nomic justification. Moreover, in our opinion, the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) already gives sufficient tools and information as regards “outlier institutions” to impose additional own funds requirements on those institutions. There is, therefore, no need for separate requirements in the form of a backstop to the NPLs guidance of European Central Bank (ECB) and European Banking Authority (EBA) and no need for an additional enforcement of sound treatment of NPLs to stabilize these institutions. Additionally, the requirements set out in the NPLs guidance are already expected to be taken into consideration in the SREP process when the individual capital requirement for each institution is elaborated. The proposed addendum to the guidance now contradicts this because it stipulates one-size-fits-all rules for the capital deduction. ESBG questions the real need for further regulation given the current tools at disposal (especially Pillar 2) as well as the recently published guidelines on this matter.  ECB Addendum: Linked to the statement above, in ESBG’s view, the almost simultaneous pub-lication of the ECB addendum raises some doubts about the interaction between both settings that, although they resemble each other, relevant differences can be highlighted: - ECB does not differentiate between the nature of the NPLs: more than 90 days past due vs other reasons where the % for provisioning raises up to 80%; - Applicability: ECB addendum refers to new NPEs identified after 01/04/18 inde-pendently from the origination date while the proposal refers to NEW originated expo-sures from 14/03/18; - Provisioning horizon: ECB fixed in 7 years for secured with a linear pre-defined form starting from the third year vs 8 years exponential proposal predefined form the start.  Rush in NPLs measures deployment: Several initiatives are being developed and even imple-mented at the very same time. ESBG considers that, before attempting to introduce new Pillar 1 requirements, a prudential period of time needs to be granted otherwise current provisions seem to be questioned. Especially regarding the recently implemented IFRS9 framework, where post-implementation revisions (PIIR) are to be conducted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). IFRS9 already includes a forward-looking perspective as well as a lifetime ex-pected loss estimation. Connected to this, heterogeneity between entities and legal frameworks is also a drawback: transparency exercises reveal real differences in the NPLs related measures. Ac-knowledging this, several initiatives in form of guidelines have already been published (EBA Guidelines on NPLs,…). This is also remarkable in terms of collateral valuation, credit servicers, national asset management companies and secondary market development, which a proposal of directive has also been launched to potentially address these issues. [...] Continues in the attached position paper. Many thanks for the understanding and best regards.
Read full response

Response to Initiative on an integrated covered bond framework

16 May 2018

Please see ESBG response attached.
Read full response

Response to Legislative proposal for an EU framework on crowd and peer to peer finance

11 May 2018

We would like to point out that while we submitted a document this morning (by Michelle Schonenberger) it turned out not to be a final version. We have sent you an email as a result notifying you of this. Below you will find a part of the final version of the ESBG position (the rest can be viewed in the document that we are attaching). I. General Considerations ESBG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation by the European Council and Parliament on crowdfunding service providers – this is a flourishing market which provides alternative sources of funding for smaller start-ups and MSMEs. However, Europe’s savings and locally-focused retail banks are keen to highlight the importance of safeguarding similar rules and regulations for all market participants (banks and others) in order to ensure a consistent level playing field for EU and non-EU players, as well as avoiding, for example, fraudulent schemes. The European Commission’s aim to develop a proper legal framework for crowdfunding across the EU, as an optional label for crowdfunding service providers, is a good first step toward harmonisation. Potential areas of harmonisation are crowdfunding platforms’ disclosure requirements, registration requirements, risk management and consumer / investor protection rules. In the long term, ESBG considers that the EU legislation should evolve toward a full harmonisation of practices in order to ensure a level playing field among platforms. National platforms could gain a regulatory advantage compared to cross-border platforms due to potential less-demanding local regulations. Furthermore, a lack of reliability in local platforms operating below ‘best practice’ standards could have a negative contagion upon the trust in cross-border platforms. Finally, existing regulations of credit institutions, credit intermediators and investment firms should be taken into account in order to reflect the nature of the platforms different services and nature. In general, it should be avoided that national regulations constitute barriers to European business models, such as European crowdfunding models. A market entry for, especially, smaller crowdfunding initiatives could be hindered. It seems appropriate that the current draft regulation only addresses lending-based and investment-based crowdfunding projects. This approach also reflects the basic principle of proportionality, since it does not hinder small donation based crowdfunding projects. ESBG agrees with the Commission’s assessment concerning the main problems related to crowdfunding platforms and peer-to-peer lending. In particular, we agree that the divergent frameworks, rules and interpretations of business models applied to crowdfunding service providers throughout the Union hinders the potential scaling up of crowdfunding activity at EU level, as large differences in regulatory standards and divergent legislative scopes adopted by Member States pose a barrier for crowdfunding platforms. As the Commission stated, this results in high costs, legal complexity and uncertainty for crowdfunding service providers, and is responsible for causing unnecessary market fragmentation as well as a lack of economies of scale and inconsistent approaches to transparency and financial risks. Authorisation Under Spanish law, there is a specific legal framework for crowdfunding platforms involved in the intermediation of financing through loans, bonds or equity participations. These platforms are now under the authorisation, supervision, inspection and sanction of the Spanish Securities Market Commission (the “CNMV”), with the participation of the Bank of Spain in the case of lending-based crowdfunding. They have to fulfil certain administrative and financial requirements to be allowed to operate as crowdfunding platforms. Moreover, the law restricts the range of services that these platforms may provide. In particular, they [...]
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

26 Apr 2018 · Banking package, ESAs review

Response to Legislative proposal for an EU framework on crowd and peer to peer finance

27 Nov 2017

On the whole, ESBG supports further progress towards more integrated European capital markets which can be an important factor to bring Europe back to a sustainable path to growth. European citizens need efficient and dynamic capital markets together with a strong and stable banking sector. While we share the Commission’s view that crowdfunding could be a valuable alternative source of finance which will contribute towards the achievement of the Capital Markets Union, we also strongly believe that it is of the utmost importance that the Commission takes a holistic approach, which combines the promotion of bank lending and capital-market-based financing whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection. Experience seems to tell us that crowdfunding has developed better in jurisdictions with a relevant and transparent regulation than where no such framework is established. The objectives that have been set by the Commission for the possible legal proposal are both important and relevant. We are of the opinion that creating a level playing field is vital in order to enable platforms to scale cross-border. A proportionate and effective risk management framework is necessary to secure the reliability of, and trust in, the platforms. It is also important that such a framework secures a level playing field for more traditional banks and investment firms competing with the platforms. ESBG believes that option 3 is the optimal solution to tackle the problems and risks related to crowdfunding. This is the only option that both secures a level playing field, enabling platforms to scale cross-border, and at the same time securing reliability and trust through a proportionate and effective risk management framework. Moreover, we support that crowdfunding and peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms are subjected to the following rules in order to address the main risks posed by these platforms: - Anti-Money Laundering: The borderless nature of crowdfunding and its potential anonymity could lead to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. We consider, thus, that platforms should be included in the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (as far as, for example, payment services providers are included). - Capital Requirements: Protection for participants in case of platform failure, confidence of the market on crowdfunding and the impact that it could have on the financial system are closely related to the capital requirements applicable to crowdfunding platforms. In this sense, capital requirements should be established in order to ensure the success of crowdfunding. - Information disclosure: Crowdfunding platforms should be required to inform other market participants (e.g. banks) of any credit given to participants (e.g. SMEs). Otherwise, the creditworthiness assessment of these participants by other financial markets’ participants would be impossible and, thus, crowdfunding would add to the risk in the financial system. - Fair and transparent contract clauses and fee structure: As far as crowdfunding platforms could be themselves SMEs and lending would not be carried out by professional entities, a lack of appropriate contracts, clauses and information to participants will likely arise. Therefore, standardised contracts should be required in order to prevent risks to participants. - Consumer protection: Investing in crowdfunding platforms could involve the same risks as investing in some of the products that are under the scope of MiFID II. Therefore, consumer protection should be guaranteed as in other existing European regulations. - Platforms should be required to be authorised by a national supervisory authority and subject to its supervisory mechanisms. In that sense, checking that the natural persons who manage a crowdfunding platform meet appropriate standards for competence, capability, integrity and financial soundness should be required. For more information, please see attached position paper.
Read full response

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

27 Nov 2017 · Digital Single Market; Consumer protection

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

17 Nov 2017

ESBG welcomes the opportunity given by the European Commission to give feedback on its proposals to review the European Supervisory Authorities and other legislative texts. As a whole, we believe that there are both positive and negative changes being proposed – however, we are surprised that the entire financial industry has been ignored by including in the proposal that the industry should fund the ESAs’ work. Please find set out below some of the concerns shared by Europe’s savings and retail banks. 1. Funding should not fall on financial institutions The opinion on the sources of funding is clear: The ESAs should not receive the majority of their funding directly from the financial institutions. The whole banking industry is aligned on this. While the global financial crisis may have created political pressure to make financial entities con-tribute more heavily to their regulation and supervision, introducing direct funding from the industry would be ill-advised due to the following reasons: • The three authorities – EBA, ESMA and EIOPA – were formed in 2011 mainly to assist the European Commission in strengthening the financial sector by developing draft technical standards and issuing guidelines and recommendations and fostering supervisory convergence across the EU; • The combination of higher capital requirements, increased compliance costs and a low interest rates environment has already severely affected the profitability of banks in the EU (ROE levels passing from 10% before 2007 to 1.75% in Q1 2017). Additional cost pressure would only reinforce the existing trend showing that total costs of Eurozone banks have been going up by 1.2% per year every year since 2010 . This continuous escalation can already largely be attributed to the increase in regulatory cost since 2007 and supplementary contribution materialized by ESA’s direct funding may only further weaken banks’ low profitability. On the other hand the low profitability is seen as the major concern by the ECB, as highlighted again by Danièle Nouy on 9 November 2017 in an ECON hearing, to strengthen European banks’ stability and thereby the financial system as a whole. • In working on regulatory technical standards or implementing technical standards the ESAs are, in fact, performing tasks that should normally be performed by the European Commission pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU. That makes each ESA much more of a legislative authority than a supervisory authority and substantiates the need for the costs of the ESAs to be covered by the Commission/EU budget; • Furthermore, by being partly financed by the European Union budget, it is guaranteed that national interests do not prevail over the commitment to European interests and furthering the single market; • With regard to the particular work (to date) of the EBA and ESMA in converging and aligning microprudential oversight at EU level, there is a necessary public good (market stability, consumer protection, level playing field for stakeholders) involved in oversight by public authorities and believe it important that the European Union budget continues to support the agencies that fall under the responsibility of the EU institutions; • The diversity of the banking sector in terms of banks’ business models and size contributes to financial stability, and it should not be put at risk by the uncontrolled inflation of supervisory costs. Please see the attached document for the rest of ESBG's response.
Read full response

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

17 Nov 2017

ESBG welcomes the opportunity given by the European Commission to give feedback on its proposals to review the European Supervisory Authorities and other legislative texts. As a whole, we believe that there are both positive and negative changes being proposed – however, we are surprised that the entire financial industry has been ignored by including in the proposal that the industry should fund the ESAs’ work. Please find set out below some of the concerns shared by Europe’s savings and retail banks. 1. Funding should not fall on financial institutions The opinion on the sources of funding is clear: The ESAs should not receive the majority of their funding directly from the financial institutions. The whole banking industry is aligned on this. While the global financial crisis may have created political pressure to make financial entities con-tribute more heavily to their regulation and supervision, introducing direct funding from the industry would be ill-advised due to the following reasons: • The three authorities – EBA, ESMA and EIOPA – were formed in 2011 mainly to assist the European Commission in strengthening the financial sector by developing draft technical standards and issuing guidelines and recommendations and fostering supervisory convergence across the EU; • The combination of higher capital requirements, increased compliance costs and a low interest rates environment has already severely affected the profitability of banks in the EU (ROE levels passing from 10% before 2007 to 1.75% in Q1 2017). Additional cost pressure would only reinforce the existing trend showing that total costs of Eurozone banks have been going up by 1.2% per year every year since 2010 . This continuous escalation can already largely be attributed to the increase in regulatory cost since 2007 and supplementary contribution materialized by ESA’s direct funding may only further weaken banks’ low profitability. On the other hand the low profitability is seen as the major concern by the ECB, as highlighted again by Danièle Nouy on 9 November 2017 in an ECON hearing, to strengthen European banks’ stability and thereby the financial system as a whole. • In working on regulatory technical standards or implementing technical standards the ESAs are, in fact, performing tasks that should normally be performed by the European Commission pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU. That makes each ESA much more of a legislative authority than a supervisory authority and substantiates the need for the costs of the ESAs to be covered by the Commission/EU budget; • Furthermore, by being partly financed by the European Union budget, it is guaranteed that national interests do not prevail over the commitment to European interests and furthering the single market; • With regard to the particular work (to date) of the EBA and ESMA in converging and aligning microprudential oversight at EU level, there is a necessary public good (market stability, consumer protection, level playing field for stakeholders) involved in oversight by public authorities and believe it important that the European Union budget continues to support the agencies that fall under the responsibility of the EU institutions; • The diversity of the banking sector in terms of banks’ business models and size contributes to financial stability, and it should not be put at risk by the uncontrolled inflation of supervisory costs.
Read full response

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

17 Nov 2017

ESBG welcomes the opportunity given by the European Commission to give feedback on its proposals to review the European Supervisory Authorities and other legislative texts. As a whole, we believe that there are both positive and negative changes being proposed – however, we are surprised that the entire financial industry has been ignored by including in the proposal that the industry should fund the ESAs’ work. Please find set out below some of the concerns shared by Europe’s savings and retail banks. 1. Funding should not fall on financial institutions The opinion on the sources of funding is clear: The ESAs should not receive the majority of their funding directly from the financial institutions. The whole banking industry is aligned on this. While the global financial crisis may have created political pressure to make financial entities con-tribute more heavily to their regulation and supervision, introducing direct funding from the industry would be ill-advised due to the following reasons: • The three authorities – EBA, ESMA and EIOPA – were formed in 2011 mainly to assist the European Commission in strengthening the financial sector by developing draft technical standards and issuing guidelines and recommendations and fostering supervisory convergence across the EU; • The combination of higher capital requirements, increased compliance costs and a low interest rates environment has already severely affected the profitability of banks in the EU (ROE levels passing from 10% before 2007 to 1.75% in Q1 2017). Additional cost pressure would only reinforce the existing trend showing that total costs of Eurozone banks have been going up by 1.2% per year every year since 2010 . This continuous escalation can already largely be attributed to the increase in regulatory cost since 2007 and supplementary contribution materialized by ESA’s direct funding may only further weaken banks’ low profitability. On the other hand the low profitability is seen as the major concern by the ECB, as highlighted again by Danièle Nouy on 9 November 2017 in an ECON hearing, to strengthen European banks’ stability and thereby the financial system as a whole. • In working on regulatory technical standards or implementing technical standards the ESAs are, in fact, performing tasks that should normally be performed by the European Commission pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU. That makes each ESA much more of a legislative authority than a supervisory authority and substantiates the need for the costs of the ESAs to be covered by the Commission/EU budget; • Furthermore, by being partly financed by the European Union budget, it is guaranteed that national interests do not prevail over the commitment to European interests and furthering the single market; • With regard to the particular work (to date) of the EBA and ESMA in converging and aligning microprudential oversight at EU level, there is a necessary public good (market stability, consumer protection, level playing field for stakeholders) involved in oversight by public authorities and believe it important that the European Union budget continues to support the agencies that fall under the responsibility of the EU institutions; • The diversity of the banking sector in terms of banks’ business models and size contributes to financial stability, and it should not be put at risk by the uncontrolled inflation of supervisory costs.
Read full response

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

8 Nov 2017 · Risk Reduction Measures Package

Response to Review of Regulation on cross-border payments

24 Jul 2017

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group is a Brussels-based association that helps its member savings and retail banks thrive, focus on providing service to local communities and boost SMEs. ESBG brings together nearly 1000 savings and retail banks in 21 European countries that believe in a common identity for policy in Europe. Its members represent one of the largest European retail banking networks, comprising one-third of the retail banking market in the European Union, with 190 million customers, more than 60,000 outlets, total assets of €7.1 trillion, non-bank deposits of €3.5 trillion, and non-bank loans of €3.7 trillion. ESBG members come together to agree on and promote common positions on relevant regulatory or supervisory matters. We would take this opportunity to give the following feedback on this Inception Impact Assessment on the Review of Regulation (EC) N°924/2009 on cross-border payments in order to extend its scope to all non-Euro currencies in the Union as we see no need for an action to extend this Regulation to other currencies, as per our reasoning below. Our initial estimate, based on European Central Bank data, is that, after Brexit, cross-border credit transfers in non-euro currencies account for only 0,83% of all credit transfers in the European Union. For banks within the Euro area, this very limited number of non-euro transactions attract higher costs than transactions within the Euro area. Also for the non-Euro area banks the cross-border transactions incur higher cost than the domestic currency transactions. This is because banks within the Euro area can processes all cross-border transactions denominated in Euros in batch using common standards on efficient and bespoke Clearing and Settlement Mechanisms that have been designed to process Euro transactions in bulk. Similar national processing standards exist in the non-Euro countries helping to keep cost down. The underlying payment systems within the Euro area and the multiple non-euro currencies therefore differ significantly. Compared to the world of fashion one can say that a Euro cross-border payment transaction is a mass-produced T-shirt whereas a non-euro cross-border payment transaction is a hand-woven shirt. Our initial view is that regulation in this particular niche might not meet proportionality criteria especially since all the remaining non-Euro countries can opt in on regulation (EU) 924/2009 on charges for cross-border payments in euro, as Sweden has done thus giving their citizens the equal pricing benefits among others without exposing other member states in the Euro area. As such, we believe that the current Regulation is sufficient and that there is no need to extend the scope of this Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the EU SME Definition

5 Jul 2017

ESBG brings together nearly 1000 savings and retail banks in 20 European countries that believe in a common identity for European policies. ESBG members represent one of the largest European retail banking networks and are among the leaders in SME lending in Europe with around €500 billion of SME loans on their books representing approximately 30% of the EU SME lending market. ESBG acknowledges the importance of the initiative of the European Commission in revisiting the current EU SME definition. We would like to point out that the EU SME definition is an important issue for European credit institutions as it is used as an eligibility criteria for the application of the SME Supporting Factor (Article 501 of the CRR). On general terms, ESBG advocates for a broad definition of the EU SME definition as current thresholds (regarding company size and especially turnover) have been set in 2003 and that recent inflation developments should be taken into consideration (+26.75% inflation growth between 2003 and 2016). Moreover, it should be noted that other SME definitions outside of the EU are commonly using a company size’s threshold of 500 (vs 250 currently in the EU) as it is the case in some US organisations such as the United States International Trade Commission or the United States Small Business Administration (depending on the industry type). An extension of this threshold may be beneficial in the EU definition as it would allow SMEs to scale up without the fear of losing their SME status thus potentially leading to growth in employment.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

27 Feb 2017 · Sustainable Finance, Fintech, CMU

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

31 Mar 2016 · Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Miguel Arias Cañete (Commissioner) and CaixaBank, S.A.

16 Mar 2016 · The future of natural gas in the EU, the financing of energy efficiency projects and the development of microbanking to finance investment projects of the immigrant population.

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

29 Feb 2016 · Digitisation of financial services

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Digital Economy)

26 Jan 2016 · Digital issues in the financial sector

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

6 Jul 2015 · Capital Markets Union/Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

25 Jun 2015 · Financial Services Policy

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

19 Mar 2015 · Keynote speech at the ESBG Retail Banking conference

Meeting with Matthew Baldwin (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

29 Jan 2015 · Financial Policy