27 Amendments of Alfred SANT related to 2016/2247(INI)
Amendment 35 #
A. whereas the establishment of the Banking Union has been a fundamental step taken towards the completion of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union; whereas further efforts are needed as the Banking Union remains incomplete as long as it lacks a fiscal backstop and the Third Pillar of a European Deposit Insurance scheme;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas a completed Banking Union will be an important contribution to breaking the sovereign-risk nexus;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas recent data show that the estimated NPLs in the euro area is EUR 1132 € billion1a; _________________ 1a2017 independent Annual Growth Survey 5th Report, 23 November 2016.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the high level of non- performing loans (NPLs) in some jurisdictions; considers that this issue is crucial and has yet to be sol; notes that notwithstanding the moderate economic recovery in some jurisdictions the latest data on NPLs have peaked or show a declining trend; considers that this issue is crucial but until now it has been only addressed at national levedl; welcomes the work of the SSM and its draft guidance on this issue; looks forward to the results of the work on a minimum EU insolvency framework; calls on Member States to improve their insolvency legislation and to stimulate growth in order to tackle NPLs; calls for the development of a NPL primary and secondary market, possibly at the European level, in the form of a securitisation market; suggests the establishment of dedicated asset management companies (or "bad banks") and enhanced supervision;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that there are risks associated wiStresses the importance of the objective of the Banking Union to break the sovereign debt; notes, however,-risk nexus; notes that modifying its prudential treatment could have a significantly negative effect on the financial sector, which calls for caution in reform efforts; awaits with interest the results of the international work on this issue; considers that, in the end, a betterEU regulatory framework, be it European or international, will be neede should be consistent with the international standard;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that guidance provided by international fora should be used in order to avoid the risk of regulatory fragmentation; , but recalls the Parliament's resolution of 23 November 2016 on the finalisation of Basel III which recalled that the current revision should not bring about a significant increase in overall capital requirements, and underlined the principle of the BCBS to promote the level playing field at the global level by mitigating - rather than exacerbating - the differences between jurisdictions and banking models, and by not unduly penalising the EU banking model;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the need to clarify the objectives of Pillar 2 and its place within the stacking order of capital requirements; is of the view that the use of capital guidance is a relevant way forward in order to balance financial stability concerns with flexibility needs; encourages the ECB to clarify the criteria that underline the Pillar 2 guidance; recalls that this guidance does not constrain the Maximum Distributable Amount (MDA), therefore it should not be disclosed;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out thatWelcomes the progress made to prepare for allowing some delegation in the area of fit and proper decisions; nevertheless points out that a change in the regulations is needed to allow more and easier delegation of decision-making on some routine issues from the Supervisory Board to relevant officials c; would welcome such a change which would contribute to making ECB banking supervision more efficient;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls the need to find, in the exercise of supervision, a balance between the need for proportionality and the need for a consistent approach; welcomes the Commission's proposal of November 2016, which introduces more proportionality and reduces some of the regulatory costs for smaller institutions;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Encourages the streamlining of requirements to avoid double reporting and unnecessary additional costs of regulation; calls on the Commission to address the issue in due course in line with their conclusions from the call for evidence;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines that the exercise of supervision should take into consideration the different banking systems and operational models across the EU;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Reiterates its stressing of the importance of strong and well- functioning IT systems corresponding to the needs of the supervisory functions of the SSM and security concerns, regrets recent reports about persisting weaknesses in the IT system;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Welcomes the excellent work of the Joint Supervisory Teams (JSTs) which are a good example of European cooperation and knowledge building; points out that the proposed future use of a rotating system in the organisation of JSTs should guarantee objective supervision while taking into consideration the lengthy process of knowledge building in this very complex field of expertise;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Recalls the need to dedicate more ECB personnel to the SSM to avoid over- reliance on staff from NCAs which potentially jeopardises the ECB supervisory tasks; welcomes the ECB's cooperation with the European Parliament on staff working conditions; underlines the importance of a good working environment that fosters professional cohesion in the ECB;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 e (new)
Paragraph 9 e (new)
9e. Welcomes that the Banking Union has widely eliminated the home-host issue in supervision by the establishment of a single supervisor and the greatly improved exchange of relevant information between supervisory authorities, enabling a more holistic supervision of cross-border banking groups; stresses that, due to the current incomplete state of the Banking Union, the CRR review on liquidity and capital waivers needs to appropriately take into account concerns of consumer protection in host countries;
Amendment 265 #
9h. Welcomes the ECB initiative to oblige supervised banks to report significant cyber-attacks under a real- time alert service and the SSM on-site inspections to supervise cyber-security; calls for the establishment of a legal framework which facilitates the exchange of sensitive information relevant to prevent cyber-attacks between banks;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 i (new)
Paragraph 9 i (new)
9i. Stresses the crucial role of cyber- security for banking services and the need to incentivise financial institutions to be very ambitious in protecting consumer data and guaranteeing cyber-security;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 j (new)
Paragraph 9 j (new)
9j. Points out that in the current environment non-banks are increasingly expanding their assets and, taking into account that they tend to be very sensitive to crises, encourages expanding regulation to all banking activities;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Underlines the importance to clarify practical issues which are directly affecting resolution, such as the reliance on service providers which provide critical services for example in the case of out- sourced IT services;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Takes note of the differences between the FSB TLAC standard and the MREL; stresses, however, that both standards share the same objective; concludes therefore that a holistic approach to loss-absorption can be reached by combining the two; highlights that due consideration should be given to retaining the two criteria of size and risk-weighted assets; emphasizes that market disclosure should be made in an appropriate manner in order to avoid investor misinterpretation of the MREL requirements;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls for a careful calibration of MREL requirements considering that a disproportionate amount would entail unnecessarily high funding costs and could reduce the capacity of banks to finance the economy;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets that the Commission did not allow for more time to assess the implementation of the DGSD before proposSupports the Commission's proposal of a three stages approach towards a fully mutualised European fund, which is the most effective option to protect all depositors ing the EDIS and did not conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposal; stands ready, however, to seize the opportunity generated by the proposal to discuss the DGSD and address some of the optBanking Union; stands ready to address some of the options and discretions in the DGSD with the objective of reducing them as an important step towards a genuine level playing field; appreciates the Commission's and discretions it includesdditional effect analysis on EDIS;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Is aware of the potential benefnecessitsy of an EDIS; is nevertheless of the opinion that risk reduction measures are an indispensable counterparty to its establishment in order toto prevent moral hazard; points out the progress made in risk reduction since the establishment of the Banking Union in particular with the SSM and the SRM and the wide range of prevudent moral hazard, and that such measures should preferably precede risk sharingial measures which have been taken with respect to banks; is of the opinion that risk sharing measures should now proceed speedily;
Amendment 427 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the establishment of loan facility agreements between the SRF and the Banking Union Member States; is of the opinion, nevertheless, that this solution is not sufficient to do away with the bank-sovereign vicious circle and that the work on a common fiscal backstop for the SRF, which should be fiscally neutral over the medium term, should continue step by step; calls for a more robust mutualised credit line via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM); reaffirms the need to have the common backstop fiscally neutral over the medium term and fully operational at the latest by the end of 2024 as agreed within the agreement on the SRF and confirmed by the European Council in June 2016; Calls on the Council and the Commission to speed up the work on this issue;
Amendment 434 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Is of the opinion that in order to restore trust, a fiscal backstop needs to work for the Banking Union as a whole;
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Underlines that the restrictive eligibility criteria of the ESM's direct bank recapitalisation instrument limit its effectiveness; highlights that a more easily accessible mechanism for direct bank recapitalisation would boost depositor confidence, contribute to breaking the sovereign-bank link and reinforce financial stability;