37 Amendments of Danuta Maria HÜBNER related to 2017/2072(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to the report of the Subgroup on Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) of the Council’s Financial Services Committee of 31 May 2017;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission consultative document of 10 November 2017 on statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisions for newly originated loans that turn non- performing,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas at the end of 2016 the total number of credit institutions in the euro area stood at 5 073 on an unconsolidated basis, down from 5 475 in 2015, 5 614 in 2014 and 6 767 in 20083 ; _________________ 3 For the data on 2015, 2014 and 2008, see: ECB, Report on Financial Structures, October 2016, p. 22. The data for 2016 have been sent to us by the ECB and are based on the SDW (http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/). They can be updated once the Report on Financial Structures for 2017 is available.;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Banking Union remains incomplete; establishment of the Banking Union is an indispensable component of a monetary union and a fundamental building block 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 a third pillar, this being a European approach to deposit re-/insurance; whereas a completed Banking Union will be an important contribution to breaking the sovereign- risk nexus;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas any Member State which is not part of the euro area can decide to join in the Banking union on a voluntary basis;whereas no EU member State has so far decided to do so;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the ECB’s ‘failing or likely to fail’ assessments in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A., Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto BancaAgrees with the Commission that procedures leading to decisions whether or not a bank is ‘failing or likely to fail’ need to be improved;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the ECB’s determination in the context of the precautionary recapitalisation of Monte dei Paschi di Siena that the bank is solvent and meets the capital requirements; notes, in this regard, that the determination of solvency leaves room for an element of subjectivity as this determinat use of asset quality reviews in order to determine whether the conditions for precautionary recapitalisation gareatly depends on how a bank’s assets are valu met should be clarified;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that cooperation and exchange of information between supervision authorities and resolution authorities is crucial for the smooth and effective conduct of resolution actions;agrees in this regard with the Commission that recent resolution cases have demonstrated that cooperation between those authorities worked well in the Banking Union;notes however that the Commission has identified areas for improvements concerning exchange of information and coordination between the ECB banking supervision and the SRB, in particular as regards the crucial issues of whether an institution is eligible for precautionary recapitalisation and whether it is failing or likely to fail;calls on the ECB and the SRB to keep improving their day-to-day cooperation and strengthening their working relationship;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its concerns about the high level of non-performing loans (NPLs) in certain jurisdictions; agrees with the Commission that ‘Member States and banks themselves have a primary responsibility in tackling non-performing loans’4 ; welcomes, nonetheless,'while tackling NPLs is primarily the responsibility of affected banks and Member States, there is a distinct European dimension'4a to the issue; welcomes the work done by different EU institutions and bodies on this issue; calls on these actors and the Member States to duly implement the Council conclusions of 11 July 2017 on the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe; _________________ 4welcomes the Commission communication on cthe Completingon of the Banking Union, 11 October 2017, p. 15 (COM(2017)0592) by 2018 as well as the result of the public consultation launched on the NPL backstop and looks forward to the package of measures to accelerate the reduction of NPLs that will be proposed in the coming months; _________________ 4a Commission consultative document on statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisions for newly originated loans that turn non- performing.
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that there are risks associated with sovereign debt; notes that in some Member States financial institutions have overly invested in bonds issued by their own governments, constituting excessive ‘home bias’; recalls that one of the main objectives of the Banking Union is to break the bank- sovereign-risk-nexus; considers that the EU regulatory framework on prudential treatment of sovereign debt should be consistent with the international standard; awaits, therefore the results of the FSB’s work on sovereign debt with great interest in order to guide future decisions; stresses the crucial role of government bonds in providing high- quality and liquid assets for the financial sector and safe liabilities for governments; takes note, in this respect, of the Commission’s ongoing work on the idea of so-called sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS);
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls that SBBSs would not constitute a form of debt mutualisation;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesStresses the importance of addressing the flaws identified in internal models in order to re-establish their credibility and achieve a level playing field across institutions; welcomes in this context the work done by the ECB to assess the adequacy of internal models, including its new guide to the TRIM, with a view to addressing the variability in risk- weights applied to risk- weighted assets of the same class across credit institutions; calls for a rapid conclusion of negotiations on output floors within the BCBSso welcomes the work done by the EBA in this field in the framework of its benchmarking exercises; follows with interest the ongoing negotiations on output floors within the BCBS and recalls that the regulatory changes planned should not result in overall increases in capital requirements or harm the ability of banks to finance the real economy, in particular SMEs;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Believes that the first pillar of the Banking Union has proven to work well over its first years of existence and welcomes the work done by the SSM in particular as regards the review of models, the functioning of colleges and the closing of national options and discretions;recalls that the creation of a common supervisory culture is a learning process and therefore requires time;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Recalls the principle of separation between the monetary policy function and the supervisory function of the SSM and considers its respect crucial in order to avoid conflicts of interests;takes the view that this principle has been in general well complied with;believes that the test to be used in order to determine the suitableness of shared services shall be the policy relevance of the tasks they perform;therefore, considers that shared services are unproblematic when they deal with issues that are non-critical in terms of policy making but could be a cause for concerns and could warrant additional safeguards where and when this is not the case;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Stresses the importance of the cooperation between the EBA as a regulatory authority and the SSM as a supervisory authority;notes however the difference in the geographical scope of activities of each institution;recommends that concrete coordination of the regulatory initiatives to be taken by both institutions be improved wherever practicable in order to ensure the consistency of the single rulebook, while acknowledging that the SSM shall have a leading role when Banking Union-specific issues or regulatory gaps are identified;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Stresses the importance of a clear delineation between bank-specific decisions, which are matter for supervisors including the SSM, and pillar 1 decisions which are governed by legislation approved by the co-legislators;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5 e. Takes the view that the involvement of more ECB staff in on-site inspections could contribute to further enhance the independence of banking supervision from national considerations;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the work done by the EBA and E, ESMA and the SSMA on promoting supervisory convergence in the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU with a view to limiting the development of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage risks; believes that, in order to preserve financial stability, a new supervisory cooperation model should be developed between the EU and the UK and the creation of empty shells and letter box companies; believes that any further framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls the importance of preparedness and of adequate contingency planning by banks to mitigate the disruptive effect of Brexit; is concerned that some banks, in particular smaller ones, might be lagging behind in their preparations for Brexit and calls on them to intensify their work; recalls that the process for obtaining banking licences and have internal models approved takes several years and that this should be factored in;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Looks forward to the Commission’s proposal on large investment firms; expects it to contribute to establishing a level playing field between investment firms and credit institutions and closing loopholes that might allow the use of large investment firms in order to avoid banking regulatory requirements;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that the lack of harmonisation of national insolvency laws in the field of banking results in different treatments of creditors depending on the jurisdictions where the institution in resolution is established; calls therefore on the Commission and Member States to take further steps towards the harmonisation of bank insolvency law in order to ensure a more level playing field within the banking union and within the Union as a whole across those institutions that will not be subject to resolution;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that, while the concern aboutRecalls the mismatch between sState aid rules and Union legislation as expressed in the previous report5 related to the ability of deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) to participate in resolution as provided for in the BRRD and DGSD, the 2017 banking cases brought to light other areas of mismatch, in particular the possibility for Member States to avoid being subject to the discipline of the BRRD by paying ‘liquidation aid’; _________________ 5 European Parliament, Resolution of 15 February 2017 on ‘Banking Union – Annual Report 2016’, paragraph 38.; calls on the Commission to reconsider its interpretation of the State aid rules with reference to Articles 11(3) and11(6) of the DGSD to guarantee that preventive and alternative measures provided for by the European legislator can be actually implemented;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to undertake as soBelieves that a cause of the arbitrage opportunities revealed by the recent resolution cas possible the review referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 32(4) of the BRRD,es is the discrepancy between the rules on State aid applying under, respectively, the resolution regime and national insolvency law; calls therefore on the Commission to undertake a revision of the 2013 Banking Communication taking into account the interplay betweenwith the new resolution regime and the 2013 Banking Communication, in order to draw lessons from the 2017 banking cases;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the progress made iagreement reached on further harmonising the priority ranking of unsecured debt instruments through the Commission’s proposal of November 2016; calls for rapid implementation by Member States so that banks can issue debt in the new insolvency class and thereby build up the required buffers;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for progress to be made on theNotes ongoing legislative proposals for implementing total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) in Union law; supports the inclusion of a pre-resolution moratorium tool in the BRRD;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the ongoing technical work by the Council on a common fiscal backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF); Recalls the commitment taken in 2012 in the IGA on the SRF to establish a common fiscal backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) that would be fiscally neutral over the medium-term and the ultimate costs of which would be borne by the banking sector; welcomes the recent new emphasis given by the Commission to this issue in the context of its reflection on initiatives to deepen the EMU; welcomes the ongoing technical work by the Council within the framework of the Task Force on Coordinated Action on the design of the common fiscal backstop and calls for swift progress in this work in order to establish a backstop which should be readily accessible when deemed necessary according to the SRB; recalls that the addition of a fiscal backstop function to the tasks of the ESM has to be seen in conjunction with other planned transformations of the role, status and governance of this institution;
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Recalls that the substance of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) is to be ultimately incorporated into the Union legal framework; reiterates its calls on the Commission to reflect on ways of doing so;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17e. Is concerned about the influence that resolution decisions can have on the structure of the banking system; calls on the Commission to closely monitor this issue, follow-up on decisions taken and inform the European Parliament about its findings on a regular basis;
Amendment 338 #
18. Welcomes the EBA’s decision to publish on an annual basis data received by it in accordance with Article 10(10) of the DGSD; regresuggests that the data do notpresentation of the data be improved so as to allow for a direct comparison of the adequacy of funding betweenacross deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs); notes, nonetheless, the need for several DGSs to accelerate the build-up of available financial means in order to achieve the target level of 0.8 % of covered deposits by 3 July 2024;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 365 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that deposit protection is a common concern for all EU citizens; is currently debating the proposal on an EDIS at committee level; notes, in this respect, the Commission’s more proportionate ‘new approach’ to an EDIS as put forward in its communication of 11 October 2017;
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22