Response to consultation on Joint ESMA EBA Guidelines on suitability of management body
Go back
It is difficult to foresee any direct or eve indirect costs except as mentioned above.
Question 1: Are there any conflicts between the responsibilities assigned by national company law to a specific function of the management body and the responsibilities assigned by the Guidelines to either the management or supervisory function?
NoQuestion 2: Are the subject matter, scope and definitions sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 3: Is the scope of assessments of key function holders by CRD-institutions appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 4: Do you agree with this approach to the proportionality principle and consider that it will help in the practical implementation of the guidelines? Which aspects are not practical and the reasons why? Institutions are asked to provide quantitative and qualitative information about the size, internal organisation and the nature, scale and complexity of the activities of their institution to support their answers.
Yes we agreeQuestion 5: Do you consider that a more proportionate application of the guidelines regarding any aspect of the guidelines could be introduced? When providing your answer please specify which aspects and the reasons why. In this respect, institutions are asked to provide quantitative and qualitative information about the size, internal organisation and the nature, scale and complexity of the activities of their institution to support their answers.
N/AQuestion 6: Are the guidelines with respect to the calculation of the number of directorships appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 7: Are the guidelines within Title II regarding the notions of suitability appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 8: Are the guidelines within Title III regarding the Human and financial resources for training of members of the management body appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 9: Are the guidelines within Title IV regarding diversity appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 10: Are the guidelines within Title V regarding the suitability policy and governance arrangements appropriate and sufficiently clear?
YesQuestion 11: Are the guidelines within Title VI regarding the assessment of suitability by institutions appropriate and sufficiently clear?
Yes except q. 130/ it is not clear when the appointment should be made especially if the shareholders decide to nominate and appoint a director at the AGM when there is insufficient time for the institution to fully assess a candidate and apply for an assessment by the competent authorityQuestion 12: Are the guidelines with regard to the timing (ex-ante) of the competent authority’s assessment process appropriate and sufficiently clear?
No they are not clear. As above what happens when shareholders have the right to nominate and appoint members of the Board of Directors (q. 166)Question 13: Which other costs or impediments and benefits would be caused by an ex-ante assessment by the competent authority?
Ex-ante assessment would mean that shareholders would need to nominate members at least 4 months ahead of the AGM? Also when recruiting heads of control functions or other senior managment postiions, appointments would need to be put on hold for four months. Candidates could possibly lose interet and find alternative employment posts.It is difficult to foresee any direct or eve indirect costs except as mentioned above.