2024-03-26 | NBB_2024_06Added · Updated
The National Bank of Belgium requires Belgian credit institutions and investment firms to submit annual recovery plans via OneGate by December 15, incorporating specific governance, strategic analysis, and early warning indicator frameworks. The document mandates the inclusion of at least 19 predefined indicators across capital, liquidity, profitability, asset quality, market, and macroeconomic categories, while extending the scope of application to investment firms and replacing the previous 2022 guidelines.
NBB_2024_06 – 26 March 2024 Communication – Page 1/21 boulevard de Berlaimont 14 – BE-1000 Brussels tel. +32 2 221 54 65 company number: 0203.201.340 RPM Brussels www.bnb.be Communication Brussels, 26 March 2024 Reference: NBB_2024_06 your contact: Claire Renoirte phone +32 2 221 53 50 claire.renoirte@nbb.be Guidelines on recovery plans Scope This communication applies to Belgian credit institutions and Belgian parent undertakings of credit institutions that are not subject to direct supervision by the ECB in accordance with the SSM Regulation1 and to Belgian investment firms referred to in Article 2 of the Act on the status and supervision of investment firms and falling within the scope of Article 13, § 2, of the same Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as "institutions"), with the exception of:
Communication - Page. 2/21 NBB_2024_06 - 26 March 2024 institutions are not required to establish an individual recovery plan. Summary/Objectives This communication clarifies what we expect in terms of recovery plans. It is intended as a user-friendly tool for institutions to prepare recovery plans in compliance with the requirements of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), the EBA regulatory standards on the content of recovery plans5, the EBA guidelines on the range of scenarios to be used in recovery plans6, the EBA recommendation on the coverage of entities within a group recovery plan7, the EBA guidelines on indicators for recovery plans8 and the new EBA guidelines on overall recovery capacity in the context of recovery planning9. This communication also refers to the EBA technical advice on delegated acts concerning critical functions and core business lines 10. This communication replaces the previous communication NBB_2022_07 by incorporating the recently published EBA guidelines on overall recovery capacity in the context of recovery planning. Furthermore, the scope is extended to investment firms. The recovery plan and the associated tables must be submitted by 15 December of each year via OneGate. Structure
NBB_2024_06 – 26 March 2024 Communication – Page 3/21 Madam, Sir,
NBB_2024_06 – 26 March 2024 Communication – Page 5/21 recovery options allow the entities concerned to recover in each of the envisaged situations of serious financial and macroeconomic crisis. 13. In addition to drawing the main conclusions from the recovery plan, the summary should also highlight the main assumptions that were made in estimating the impacts of the scenarios and recovery options. 4. Governance 4.1. Development, approval and updating of the plan 14. In this chapter of the recovery plan, the institution should present an overview of the plan development process. It should provide information relating to: (a) the process, in order to show that the development of the recovery plan is well integrated into the institution's risk management system and governance; where applicable, this table will also include a description of the measures and provisions taken within the group to ensure coordination and consistency of recovery options at the group level and at each of its subsidiaries12. (b) the approval of the plan, in order to show that the plan was presented to the highest decision-making bodies of the institution and approved by them; and (c) subsequent updates of the plan, in order to show that it will remain up to date over time. 15. The following structure should be followed: (a) establishment of the plan i. Describe the process followed to establish the plan and list the main departments and persons who participated in the establishment of the plan, as well as their role. ii. On what existing processes and tools did the institution rely to establish the recovery plan? iii. What new processes and tools were created after the establishment of the recovery plan? (b) approval of the plan i. Describe the hierarchical lines and procedures for the verification and validation of the plan. ii. When was the plan submitted to the legal administrative body of the institution and approved by said body (for a public limited company, the board of directors)? iii. Did internal audit, the risk committee (if applicable) or external audit participate in the verification of the plan? If so, state their opinion. (c) future updates of the plan i. Describe the process for updating the recovery plan following important changes affecting the institution or its environment. ii. Indicate the name, function and contact details of the persons responsible for making decisions regarding subsequent updates of the plan. 12 For more information regarding group recovery plans, see the EBA Recommendation EBA/REC/2017/02 of 1 November 2017 on the coverage of entities within a group recovery plan.
Communication - Page. 6/21 NBB_2024_06 - 26 March 2024 4.2. Triggering of the recovery plan 16. In this chapter of the recovery plan, the institution should explain the process by which the recovery plan is triggered. It provides information relating to the triggering of the plan, in order to show that it can be implemented sufficiently early, when problems are still manageable. A monitoring framework comprising indicators designed to detect stress at a sufficiently early stage should be included in the recovery plan. Institutions are expected to describe the early warning system that is part of the monitoring framework and the moments when the escalation process of the recovery plan should be activated to determine if the triggering of recovery options is appropriate. 17. Institutions may also have determined certain measures that could be taken in the early phases of stress but which would no longer be appropriate or feasible in a recovery phase and which should therefore not appear as recovery options in the recovery plan. These business options could nevertheless appear in the monitoring framework, as well as a description of the moments at which, before the triggering of the recovery plan, these business options are considered. 18. The following structure should be followed: (a) Describe the monitoring framework for potential trigger events and the institution's escalation process for decision-making to determine which recovery option should, if applicable, be applied (please also describe the procedure for notifying the NBB of a breach of indicator thresholds). (b) Describe the indicators used and specify their thresholds. These indicators must include the recovery plan indicators appearing in the minimum list (points 21 to 24). Additional indicators must reflect other vulnerabilities, weaknesses or potential threats to the capital, liquidity, profitability or asset quality of the institution. (c) Describe the consistency of the monitoring framework with the risk management framework, and describe in this regard the early warning signals that are part of the institution's regular internal risk management process, insofar as these benchmarks are useful to inform management that the indicator threshold may have been reached. (d) Indicate the name, function and contact details of the persons responsible for monitoring potential trigger events and activating the plan, as well as the role, responsibilities and functions of the members of the relevant committees. (e) Describe how the institution will ensure that the information required for the potential implementation of recovery options can be made available reliably and in time for decision-making under stress conditions. 4.2.1. Indicator framework and indicator thresholds 19. The choice of indicators should be adapted to the institution's business model and strategy, as well as to its risk profile. It should define the main weaknesses likely to have the greatest impact on the institution's financial situation. The indicators for the recovery plan should be of both qualitative and quantitative nature, and should include prospective indicators. 20. Institutions should describe the links and consistency between the indicator framework for the recovery plan and the institution's general risk management framework, the existing indicators of the liquidity and solvency contingency plan, as well as the indicators of the business continuity plan. The indicator framework for the recovery plan should allow for regular monitoring and be integrated into the institution's governance and escalation and decision-making procedures.
NBB_2024_06 – 26 March 2024 Communication – Page 7/21 21. Credit institutions must include at least the following 19 indicators in their recovery plan, divided into six categories. (a) Capital indicators i. Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio ii. Total capital ratio iii. Leverage ratio iv. Minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), if applicable (b) Liquidity indicators v. Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) vi. Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) vii. Available unencumbered central bank eligible assets viii. Proportion of strictly available assets as described in Communication NBB_2016_34 "Recovery Plans – Obligations regarding encumbered assets" ix. Proportion of broadly available assets as described in Communication NBB_2016_34 mentioned above (c) Profitability indicators x. Return on assets or Return on equity xi. Significant operating losses (d) Asset quality indicators xii. Growth rate of gross non-performing loans xiii. Coverage ratio (Provisions / Total non-performing loans) xiv. Impairment of financial assets (as a % of the balance) (e) Market indicators xv. Negative rating assessment or downgrade, if applicable xvi. Credit default swap spreads, if applicable xvii. Share price variation, if applicable (f) Macroeconomic indicators xviii. GDP variations xix. Credit default swap contracts on bonds issued by central governments 22. If a credit institution can justify that these indicators are not relevant given the legal structure, risk profile, size and/or complexity of the institution, it must, as far as possible, replace them with another indicator from the same category that is more relevant to it. 23. The