Response to consultation Paper on the draft guidelines on materiality, proprietary and confidentiality and on disclosure frequency

Go back

Q2) Do you agree with the features of this process? If not, which ones would you exclude/include?

The requirements in para. 8 appear unnecessary verbose, please streamline.
Para 10 should require more detailed requirements regarding the summary description. Perhaps the summary could address the points mentioned in para 8.

Q3) Should the guidelines be developed more on what is expected from institutions when an item of information is assessed as material?

Please see next answer.

Q4) Do you agree with the principles and indicators to be considered in the assessment of materiality? Which additional principles or indicators, if any, would you like to see considered?

This Title is confusing, e.g. para 12 e. assumes that materiality is a 'user-centric concept,' but 12. g mentions that materiality should be an 'institution-specific concept.'
These terms should be defined.
In addition, para 14 b. appears to allow banks to disclose less if that is appropriate in given political environment, this is unclear, please clarify.
Perhaps this Title could align itself with the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 320, “Audit Materiality”, which offers more consistency.

Q5) Do you agree with the elements to be considered in the assessment of confidentiality or proprietary? Which additional element, if any, would you like to see considered?


Q6) Do you agree with the indicators in paragraphs 18 that should lead institutions to assess their need to disclose information more frequently? If not, which alternative indicators would you suggest?

The suggested indicators are set at very high levels, thus allowing many banks to disclose only at low frequencies. Instead of concentrating on size, one should consider the frequency that banks apply to publishing semi-annual financial reports or interim reports (audited or non-audited) as a minimum frequency. This will likely align with investors' expectations and user demands.
Regarding the proper measures of size, they cover a limited number of banks, which gives the wrong signal. The cut-offs in para 18 a-d. should be lower, so much lower that they cover at least a significant majority of banks (75%).

Q7) Do you agree that transparency should be provided on the implementation of the process and on the use of the waivers when this use leads to the non-disclosure of information required by Regulation (EU) 575/2013? If not, why?

Please see next answer.

Q8) Do you agree that information listed in paragraph 19 should be provided in case disclosures are omitted due to immateriality reasons? If not, why? Do you agree that the provision of this information allows for an optimal degree of transparency regarding the use of the materiality waiver? If not, what additional information should be provided?

Para 19 should provide more accurate requirements than it currently does. Para 19.b and 19.c, for example, are unclear on what they expect regarding the reasoning for non-disclosure or the general or aggregate substituting information.

Q9) What other techniques, if any, would you use to allow for the disclosure of meaningful information despite concerns about confidentiality or proprietary?

It would help if banks reveal separately which information is left undisclosed for proprietary reasons and which information is left undisclosed for confidentiality reasons.

Q10) Do you agree with the list of information that institutions should assess whether to disclose them more frequently than annually? If not, what information would you include in or exclude from this list?


Q11) Do you agree with the suggested frequency of disclosure for the different institutions meeting the different indicators specified in paragraph 18? If not, which alternative frequency would you suggest?

One should consider the frequency that banks apply to publishing semi-annual financial reports or interim reports (audited or non-audited) as a minimum frequency.

Q12) Do you agree with the proposed implementation date? If not, which alternative date would you suggest?

The day before perhaps?

Q13) Do you agree with our analysis of the impact of the proposals in this Consultation Paper? If not, can you provide any evidence or data that would explain why you disagree or that might further inform our analysis of the likely impacts of the proposals?

One thing EC / EBA should really consider is to require banks to submit their disclosures in a singe repository like is the case for U.S. bank holding companies. This would make research into banks much more easy. See

Name of organisation