Response to consultation on draft Implementing Technical Standards overhauling the EBA resolution planning reporting framework

Go back

Question 1: Are the instructions and templates clear to the respondents?

The proposed instructions and templates are in general terms clear, as they are broadly aligned with the existing definitions of the SRB. However, for some data points, further guidance is would be needed:

  • We have identified discrepancies between the EBA consultation paper and the annex provided. For example, on page 12 of the EBA Consultation Paper, the request is as follows: “For the Lending activities, the risk weighted assets per economic function as well as the outstanding amount of cross border values have been added”. However, in the 'Z0701 FUNC 1 LEN’ tab of the template (Annex I), there is no trace of the RWAs requested in the former template or in the EBA Consultation Paper itself, which plans to add them; 
  • During the EBA public hearing held on September 12th 2024, it was stated that the current LDR/CFR/FMIR template and guidance would be replaced by the EBA’s ITS. We would like to receive such confirmation by the SRB sufficiently in advance and not later than the publication of the final ITS in March 2025; 
  • The level of details and definitions contained in the guidance should be precise enough to help banks to ensure a sufficient budget and enough resources in order to be prepared and to accommodate these changes; 
  • We would appreciate also if the amendments made to the templates appear in a clearly manner in the EBA Annex I (either when there is an addition or when there is a cell deletion).

However, we would like to stress that even though we would obtain those clarifications, it does not mean that these induced changes can be easily managed by the Crédit Mutuel Group, as we will have to analyse whether and how these new requests can be asnwered. In any case, expecting banks to meet all these new requirements by the 2026 data collection exercise is too ambitious as further IT developments and structural changes within the bank reporting processes should be carried out.

Question 2: Do the respondents need further clarification to understand which of the minimum reporting obligations would apply to their specific profile (Resolution entity, Liquidation entity, RLE, non-institution…?

We would appreciate receiving the scope of reporting for the Crédit Mutuel Group sufficiently in advance regarding the current request to apply these new ITS for the 2026 data collection exercise. Each bank should receive the list of the reports due per entity, specifying the classification of each of these entities (Resolution entity, Liquidation entity, RLE…). These information would help the bank to anticipate and adjust to these new data collection requirements.

We would also like clarification on the rule prevailing where there is an overlap between the EBA and the SRB requirement (should we report the Z report when there is a T report?).

Question 3: Do the respondents identify any discrepancies between these templates and instructions and the determination of the requirements set out in the underlying regulation?

The following discrepancies have been identified so far:

  • On page 12 of the EBA Consultation Paper, the request reads: “For the Lending activities, the risk weighted assets per economic function as well as the outstanding amount of cross border values have been added”. However, in the ‘Z0701 FUNC 1 LEN’ tab of the template (Annex 1), there is no mention of the RWAs requested in the former template or in the EBA Consultation Paper itself, which asks for them to be added; 
  • The instructions are showing, in some cases, only three digits instead of four in the column ‘Columns’: e.g. Annex II, page 95 II.33 Z10.03; 
  • In some cases, the same column number appears twice in the instructions, whereas in the template, there are two different numbers: e.g. Annex II, page 97 II.34 Z10.04;
  • Inclusion of intra-entity services in the scope of reporting is not in line with the SRB’s Operational Continuity in Resolution (OCIR) guidelines (which do not include them for identification and mapping requirements) and is deemed as an extension of the scope; 
  • In the Z07.01 FUNC 1 PAY: the number of ATM is not requested, and the EBA Consultation Papers does not mention this removal of information. However, this datapoint has been so far requested in the SRB’s guidance. It would be appreciated if the EBA and the SRB could please confirm that the number of ATM is no longer required; 
  • In the Z07.01 FUNC 1 LEN: the value committed is not requested and the EBA Consultation Paper does not mention this removal of information. However, this datapoint has been so far requested in the SRB’s guidance. It would be very helpful if the EBA and the SRB could please confirm that the value committed is no longer required.

▪ specify which element(s) of the proposal trigger(s) that particularly high cost of compliance

The following aspects of the proposal have been identified as triggering particularly high cost of compliance:

  • The anticipation of the submission date (cf. answer to question 5); 
  • The extension of the data points required for the Z08 which are particularly redundant with the SRB Service catalogue; 
  • The extension of data points required for all the reports;  
  • The application date of these new ITS. 

▪ explain the nature/source of the cost (i.e. explain what makes it costly to comply with this particular element of the proposal) and specify whether the cost arises as part of the implementation, or as part of the on-going compliance with the reporting requirements

  1. As stated in our answer to question 5 below, the anticipation of the submission date will increase the workload on the teams in charge of preparing those reports while jeopardizing our ability to provide high quality and audited data;
  2. The extension of the data points required for the Z08 which are particularly redundant with the SRB Service catalogue will increase the burden relying on the teams in charge of these two reports and jeopardize the automation work already well under way launched by the bank in the last few years; 
  3. We would appreciate stability both in the format and in the content of resolution reportings. The extension of data points on all the reportings contained in this proposal, combined with the proposed modification of the submission date, are undermining the capacity of the banks to provide high quality data (namely because they would have less time to check the data provided), also jeopardizing the IT developments already undertaken by the bank (currently based on a different scope of entities and/or on a different scope of data points) and representing a major operational risk for the staff involved in the production of these reports; 
  4. Expecting banks to comply with these new requirements by the 2026 data collection exercice is too ambitious. The final version of the ITS will be known in March 2025 leaving only less than one year to the banks to comply. However, the extension of the data requested requires significant IT developments (e.g for the CFR as some of the data on the recurring items and the breakdown by type of counterparty on multiple data points are not available to date), the associated budget for which can only be adopted once the final text is known and once our experts have analysed the possible developments. It is unlikely that the associated budget will be adopted before the end of 2025 and developments will not be able to start until after that date. Therefore, it will be difficult to guarantee an application of these ITS in March 2026.

▪ offer suggestions on alternative ways to achieve the same/a similar result with lower cost of compliance for you

NA

i. How does this change impact your organisation’s ability to report resolution data in a timely manner while still retaining data quality?

The anticipation by one month of the submission of all resolution reports is a major concern for the Crédit Mutuel Group.

Although we understand the authorities’ request to have all the information contained in the resolution reportings at a common date to allow a cross-checking of these information, such a change in the timetable would unduly increase the burden on banks.

First of all, this change in timetable would have major operational consequences for the bank, particularly in terms of human resources, as the same teams are currently responsible for preparing these reports within our bank. Besides, the burden on these teams will also be increased by the authorities request of additional data points in this ITS proposal. This timetable change would therefore increase more than necessary the operational workload of these teams.

In addition, certain reports such as the Critical Functions Report are based on data whose availability cannot be guaranteed for 31 March. Some data require indeed prior audit and verification by our statutory auditors to ensure their quality and accuracy for the purposes of resolution reporting.

This change would also increase the number of resubmissions made by banking institutions whereas our Group’s ambition over the years has always been to improve our processes and the quality of the data we provide by reducing the number of resubmissions as much as possible.

For all these reasons, we fear that anticipating the submission deadline would, on the contrary, undermine the authorities' objective of obtaining high-quality data. It does not seem appropriate to undermine all the efforts made by the banks to improve the quality of the data required for resolution planning for the sole purpose of enabling the authorities to carry out their control at a single period.

i. Do you have any comment on the changes in the definition of the RLE threshold, including the absolute threshold of 5 billion EUR?

There is no impact for the Crédit Mutuel Group since these thresholds are already applied by the SRB (e.g. in the LDR).

i. Do you identify any issues with expanding the scope of Z01.01 to all entities in the group, bearing in mind that this report would only be requested at the level of the Group?

These changes will require modifications to the current reporting process within the Group. Expanding the scope of Z01.01 to all entities in the Group will imply important IT developments for the Crédit Mutuel Group as some information are not currently available in a press button manner. Besides, these changes require to contact the Finance Department of each entity in order to obtain all the information requested by the ITS, therefore, we cannot guarantee that the financial information requested would be audited and available for the resolution reporting purposes by the end of March. 

ii. Do you see an issue in the ability of the group to identify the resolution group to which each entity reported in the organizational structure belongs?

We do not see any issue in the ability of the Group to identify the resolution group to which each entity reported in the organizational structure belongs.

i. Are the data-point definitions provided for reporting of the Carrying Amount sufficiently clear?

There is no issue for the Crédit Mutuel Group, as the data are already provided in the LDR.

ii. Do the revised data points for the reporting of Own Funds by Investment Firms better correspond to the reporting obligations for these types of Institutions? If not, please elaborate what changes you deem appropriate.

No issue has been identified so far.

iii. Do you anticipate any difficulties in providing the additional data required for the reporting of intragroup financial connections (for liabilities excluded from bail-in)?

No issue has been identified so far.

iv. Do you see merit in providing additional clarification about any data-point definition existing in the previous version of the CIR on Resolution Reporting? If so, for which specific data points?

No issue has been identified so far.

i. Do you have questions on how the new instructions on Onboarding Capacity should be interpreted for your organization?

The information related to onboarding capacity having been the subject of an ad hoc request complementary to the 2023 CFR data request, we therefore understand that this request for data on onboarding capacity addition contained in this ITS proposal responds to the authorities’ objective to reduce the parallel data request. However, we question the relevance of having information related to onboarding capacity in the context of CFR. Indeed, the CFR is a report aimed to assess the criticality of an economic sub-function for the Crédit Mutuel Group. Therefore, we do not understand how having information on the manner in which the Crédit Mutuel Group would be able to absorb the customer of another failing bank would contribute to assessing the criticality of an activity for the Crédit Mutuel Group. In our opinion, this information is not relevant in the light of the CFR objectives.

In addition, information on onboarding capacity is not currently available in a press button format within the Group current IT systems. Besides, the time taken to onboard a prospect can vary from one prospect to another as it depends on the prospect’s profile (a longer KYC period is required for high-risk prospect). Additional IT developments would therefore be required to provide a proxy for this data as we do not consider it feasible to provide an aggregated data given the variance in onboarding duration. 

The EBA’s ambition to see these ITS applied from 2026 will not allow us to launch the appropriate developments to have this information, which according to us is not necessary to assess the criticality of a banking institution in a given activity.

We are therefore, not in favour of adding such data to the CFR.

ii. Do you find the availability of a comments section useful to explain your assessment of the critical functions? Would you suggest another means of doing this, and if so, what?

We appreciate the availability of this comments section in order to explain our assessment of the critical functions.

i. Do you see any issue in identifying “relevant services” as defined in the revised ITS?

The definition of “relevant services” provided in the revised ITS is clear. However, we would like more clarification about the difference between the Z08 reporting and the service catalogue requested by the SRB as the information contained in both documents are more and more similar.

ii. Do you think that that the data request on relevant services, as covered in the revised ITS, is sufficiently clear?

Further clarification is needed given the extension of the data points required in the new proposed Z08:

  1. Extension of scope to intra-entity services: Intra-entity services are currently out of scope of Z08 report and we question the relevance to have information on these services. Also, we would welcome more guidance on the granularity of the information to be provided as:
  • There is no contractual arrangement between departments of the same entity;
  • The actual validation rules of the template do not allow similar supplier and provider;
  1. “Name of the ultimate parent company of the service provider”: it would be welcomed to have guidance on how the banks should report the parent entity of the external service provider as it is not available to banks; 
  2. “Resolution resilience”: further guidance is needed on this information as it is requested to ensure the continuity of the service including during the implementation of the business reorganisation plan.

We also would like more guidance on the link to BRP, DORA, resolution resilient features on asset level;

  1. “Type of assets”: We would like to know if the software/ applications are included;
  2. “Mapping to roles”: We would like further guidance on the definition of the “roles” and a clear conformation that nominative information will not be requested.

iii. Do you see any overlap between this data request and related data requests on relevant/critical services raised by your Resolution Authority as part of the resolvability assessment?

The main overlap we identify is with the SRB Service catalogue. The information requested in the new Z08 template are already at the SRB disposal within its service catalogue. Therefore, we do not understand the need to increase the data points contained in the actual Z08 report. 

In addition to unnecessarily duplicating the workload on the teams responsible for these two deliverables, these changes to the Z08 report jeopardise the future of the IT projects related to the automation of the Z08 report (in its initial format) and of the service catalogue already well under way within our Group (and asked by the SRB itself).

Therefore, we are in favour of maintaining the status quo for these two reports.

Generally speaking, we would appreciate stability in the format and in the content of resolution reports, in order to not unnecessarily jeopardise the continuous improvement of the production of these reports, as well as IT automation projects and data reliability work carried out by banks in the recent years.

i. Is the definition of “substitutability” provided in the new reporting on Alternative CCP providers (Z09.04 c0030) sufficiently clear? If not, what clarifications do you think would be necessary?

The definition of “substitutability” provided in the ITS is not sufficiently clear, and we would therefore like more details on the notion. We would also appreciate clarification on the requirement to have an existing contractual relationship with the substitute CCP at the reporting date as it will increase the burden on banks, which will have to multiply contracts for the same service in order to meet this requirement. Besides, it is not guarantee that a CCP will allow membership if the access is not really used. 

We also would like to recall that a substitution in a context of resolution is theoretical as the access to a CCP is guaranteed even in a resolution context as long as the bank continues to fulfill its financial obligations towards the CCP. If the bank is not able to do so, it is very unlikely that the bank will be able to move to an alternative CCP as they all have the similar requirements.

ii. Are there additional or modified data points that you propose to include in Z09.03 to adequately capture the activity of the reporting entity with FMI service providers?

In our view, the existing data points are adequate to capture the activity of the bank with FMI service providers and no additional information should be added.

iii. Are the instructions across Z09.01-Z09.04 sufficiently clear and detailed, and if not, what clarifications do you think are necessary and where?

We would appreciate more details on the following data points:

  • “Operator of the FMI”; 
  • “Contract ID”: what should we report when the FMI relations are not captured in a single contract? Besides, contract ID may not be relevant for some FMI type as memberships are not in the form of a contract; 
  • “Resolution resilience”: how the field should be filled in when rulebooks are applied to all counterparties with no possible negotiation of terms? Also, the link with the BRP does not seem relevant.

i. Are the data-point definitions provided for reporting of the Granular Liability Data sufficiently clear? If this is not the case, for which data points would you require additional clarifications?

We would like detailed guidance such as the one existing for LDR. Furthermore, we question the practical value of these templates both for resolution planning and in times of resolution, given that they are required on a very detailed level.

Besides, given the increase of the data points required, we anticipate further IT developments (that could not be finalized in 2026) in order to collect those information.

Groupe Crédit Mutuel