Stellungnahme DK zum EBA-Konsultationspapier „On supervisory reporting on forbearance and non-performing exposures”
In regard to the definition of the term “forbearance” and the new requirements, the EBA invokes article 95 of the CRR. The German financial industry has difficulty understanding why this subject is to be taken up again shortly before the finalisation of the FINREP framework. There are already comparable requirements in the framework of IFRS and these were fleshed out and expanded in the public statement on forbearance practices issued by ESMA on 20 December 2012. Even though ESMA does not have the legal authority to issue such specifications, ESMA`s requirements are being fulfilled on a best effort basis in the entities` annual accounts. Further disclosure requirements are currently being discussed within the scope of IFRS 9. At this stage we do not see any need for further disclosure requirements on forbearance and non-performing exposures.
There should rather be synchronisation between the IFRS requirements and the requirements of FINREP with regard to content and timeline. This would also considerably facilitate the technical implementation.
The proposed definitions deviate from those customary and established under the IFRS and Basel III. Divergent definitions multiply the time and effort required for data compilation, generation and reconciliation, and impede implementation, especially in regard to differing business models in the financial sector. Despite the proposed EBA definition it is not possible to make an unambiguous allocation to loans involving forbearance measures. Rather, such allocation is a matter of how the pertinent requirements are interpreted by the given institution. We advocate the use of uniform definitions. […]