Sparkasse Oberösterreich’s Position Paper on the CRD Potential
Changes
General remarks
In general, as an Austrian savings bank we support various amendments throughout the several
chapters – large exposures, hybrids, colleges of supervisors and technical amendments. We
think that these amendments can be seen as improvements of the current regime.
In particular we wish to draw attention to the following remarks concerning inter bank exposures:
Article 111: Inter Bank Exposures
Removing the existing risk weights for inter bank exposures would have strong effects on the
liquidity situation of especially small and medium sized banks, in particular for maturities up to
one year. Furthermore, restricting inter bank exposures would be the wrong signal in times when
central banks try to encourage inter bank lending. It would also restrict the liquidity in the inter
bank market and hamper effective capital allocation, which would inevitably lead to an increase
of the costs of refinancing. Especially banking activities in CEE/SEE-countries and countries
outside the Euro-zone, with limited currency areas, could be affected disproportionately.
Therefore, and in line with the better regulation principle, we suggest a study on the impact of
the proposed amendments on the inter bank markets.
Article 111 para 1 (i):
We suggest the following amendments to the EC working document:
 Zero risk weight for exposures with maturity of one year or less; money markets should
not be touched because of possible negative impacts on the refinancing situation of credit
institutions; short term liquidity is essential in crisis situations in order to avoid possible
defaults of banks.
 [X] = amount of EUR 300 mio; the CEBS-proposal of additional thresholds of EUR 50 mio
and EUR 150 mio in connection with maturities seems too complicated to handle. A proposed
limit of EUR 300 mio would significantly help small and medium sized banks. This threshold
should not be combined with maturities.
 Exceptions concerning special exposures in connection with the refinancing situation
of a credit institution: exception of collaterals which could be taken for refinancing with the
central bank; recognition of netting and netting-master-agreements. The refinancing of credit
institutions should not be hampered.
 Retain zero risk weight for liquidity reserve and minimum reserve exposures; the
liquidity reserve is an essential tool for liquidity allocation and liquidity pooling in decentralized
sectors; an elimination would make the smooth functioning of these regimes impossible;
minimum reserves held by a mediator (Art 10 regulation 1745/2003) should also be excluded.
Article 113 para 1
Point (e): zero risk weight for claims on central institutions; in our view, point (e) must be
retained due to minimum reserve requirements of bank subsidiaries in CEE, SEE and outside
EEA: the elimination of this risk weight would be burdensome and hamper the development of
banking business in these areas. At least, the required minimum reserve with the respective
national central bank should be exempted.
Point (f): Intra Group Exposures
In our view the content of Art 113 para 2 concerning groups of credit institutions should be
retained instead of a link to Art 80 para 7. If, however, a link to Art 80 para 7 is made, it should
also cover equity exposures - as they are currently not covered by Art 80 para 7.
We support the EC proposal concerning the exception in point (f) regarding institutional
protection schemes in the sense of Art 80 para 8. In addition, here too, the zero risk weight
should be applied to equity exposures, which are currently out of the proposed reference to Art
80 para 8.
Point (n): Exposures to regional or central institutions: We support to retain Article 113 para
1 Point (n) as the elimination of this 0 risk weight would hamper massively the proven and
successful liquidity balancing in decentralised bank sectors.
Further suggestions with respect to institutional protection schemes
We appreciate the positive approach taken by the EC towards groups of credit institutions and
institutional protection schemes in the sense of Art 80 para 8. At the same time we want to take
the opportunity to support further alignment of the requirements addressing these groups.
Therefore, we propose the following amendment for a Art 80 para 9 (new).
Art 80 paragraph 9 (new) CRD 2006/48/EC:
9. Member states may choose not to apply Title V, Chapter 2, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Chapter
3 and Chapter 5 to any member of the institutional protection scheme referred to in paragraph 8,
where the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) all requirements of paragraph 8 are met;
(b) the member of the institutional protection scheme is included in the supervision on a
consolidated basis of the institutional protection scheme;
(c) the institutional protection scheme shall comply with Articles 75, 120, 123, Title V, Chapter 2,
Section 5 and Chapter 5 on the basis of their consolidated financial situation;
(d) the risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures of the institutional protection
scheme cover the member of the institutional protection scheme; and
(e) the institutional protection scheme draws up and publishes once in a year a consolidated
report comprising the balance sheet, the profit-and-loss account, the situation report and the risk
report, concerning the institutional protection scheme as a whole.
Competent authorities shall determine how consolidation is to be carried out. Article 69
paragraph 4 is applied referring to the institutional protection scheme. Significant members of
the institutional protection scheme shall disclose the information specified in Annex XII, Part 1,
point 5. on an individual or sub-consolidated basis.
In this respect we would like to offer our expertise in the course of the upcoming discussions.
2