ERU, Alm.del - 2012-13 - Bilag 320: Høringssvar til Kommissionenes offentlige høring vedr. det Europæiske System for Finansielt Tilsyn (ESFS)), fra erhvervs- og økonomiministeren

General commentsThe Danish governmentwould like to thank the European Commissionfor the opportunity to contribute to the consultation.The Danish govern-mentgenerally finds that itis still too early to fully assess the impact of theEuropean System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) with only three yearsof experience. Furthermore, the experience has so far been gained duringa period of severe financial crisis, which hashad a significant impact onthe functioning of the ESFS. Finally, the EBA regulation has alreadybeen revised on some points during the negotiations on the Single Super-visory Mechanism (SSM). As such,the assessment of the ESFS could pre-ferably be postponed. However, there may be a need to adjust themandate of the ESRB with regard to recommendations in light of theSSM.On this note, the Danish government, however, finds that the impact ofthe ESFS overall is positive. The ESFS has had important impact on thefinancial system the last three years in ensuring a consistent level of regu-lation and supervision in financial services, strengthening internationalsupervisory coordination and contributing to the mitigation of systemicrisks to financial stability in the Union.The European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs)Generally, the Danish governmentfinds that the ESAs perform wellagainst their mandates. For instance, the ESAs have performed well indrafting technical standards at a high professional level at the same timeas they were building up their organizational capacity. However, whenhandling the massive volume of technical standards due in the comingyears, it will be crucial that the ESAs ensure efficient project manage-ment, so that output from the ESAs is delivered in time to the Commis-sion and other stakeholders. We consider thisessential in order to promotethe internal market for financial services.Moreover, the Danish government finds that the ESAs have sufficient re-sources to perform well on their present tasks. It is, however, importantthat the ESAs prioritize their resources to keep focusing on key risks ra-ther than making e.g. guidelines and recommendations on each and everyissue. This should also be reflected in the recruitment policies of theESAs, by putting more emphasis on recruiting people with supervisory

experience and capabilities, as well as more emphasis on project man-agement skills when employing staff, as this will be vital for the signifi-cant coming work load.In our view the composition and voting rules of the Board of Supervisorsand the Management Boards as approved by Council and Parliament inthe revised EBA-regulation will function well and there is an adequatereview clause contained in this regulation if major changes should occuras to non-euro Member States joining the SSM. In that regard it could beconsidered whether there is a need for aligning these back-stops on block-voting also for ESMA and EIOPA with the revised EBA-regulation, sinceEBA voting block created with the SSM could translate into EIOPA andESMA territories as well.The European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)Since the establishment of the ESRB at the beginning of 2011 the ESRBhas mainlyfocused on systemic risks and vulnerabilities arising from andin the aftermath of the financial crisis. That is, the ESRB has in particularfocused on banks’ funding and liquidity and issued recommendationswithin these areas. This is understandable but it is importantthat ESRBfocus on the risk incurring in the medium and longer term instead of theimmediate problems and crisis management.The role of the ESRB has demonstrated a number of challenges. We be-lieve it is mainly due to the fact that the ESRB was established during thefinancial crisis.Looking forward, the Danish government finds that the ESRB has an im-portant role to play in identifying systemic risks in the entire financialsector including areas outside of the banking system and across financialsectors. It is highly relevant for the ESRB to give timely input on macro-prudential aspects of financial regulation as well as recommendations onmacroprudential measures and if necessary coordination of macropruden-tial policy among EU all countries inside as well as outside the SSM.One of the advantages of the ESRB is the cooperation between ECB, na-tional central banks and supervisory authorities. The discussions at ESRBmeetings of systemic risks and vulnerabilities benefit from macro-prudential aspects, in which the central banks are specialized, as well asof the micro-prudential viewpoints provided by supervisory authorities. Itis, therefore, important to maintain this positive interchange between ma-cro- and micro-prudential aspects.The Danish government welcomes the ESRB’s initiatives with respect toanalysis of how macro-prudential instruments would work but we findthat this analysis should have been focused further upon at an earlierstage to ensure a more forward-looking approach, rather than focus onrecommendation on current legislation.