A BIPRU firm that is a subsidiary undertaking of a BIPRU firm or of a financial holding company or of a mixed financial holding company3 must apply the requirements laid down in GENPRU 1.2 (Adequacy of financial resources) and4 the main BIPRU firm Pillar 1 rules (but not the base capital resources requirement) on a sub-consolidated basis if the BIPRU firm, or the parent undertaking where it is a financial holding company or a mixed financial holding company3, have a third country investment services undertaking4 as a subsidiary undertaking or hold a participation in such an undertaking.4244
(1) only applies if the appropriate regulator is required by the Banking Consolidation Directive or the Capital Adequacy Directive to supervise the group established under (1) under Article 73(2) of the Banking Consolidation Directive (Non-EEA sub-groups).
The base capital resources requirement does not apply on a consolidated basis.
The remainder of this section sets out a process for identifying a non-EEA sub-group in straightforward cases.
A firm will not be a member of a non-EEA sub-group unless it is1 also a member of a UK consolidation group. So the first step is to identify each undertaking in the firm's UK consolidation group that satisfies the following conditions:
- (1) 44
one of the following applies:
- (1) 4
one of the following applies:
The financial holding company identified in BIPRU 8.3.12 G may be a parent financial holding company in a Member State.4
Having identified potential non-EEA sub-groups for each third country investment services undertaking4 in its UK consolidation group the firm should then eliminate overlapping potential non-EEA sub-groups in the following way. If:4
- (2) 4
then the smaller potential non-EEA sub-group is eliminated.
If a UK consolidation group is headed by a parent financial holding company in a Member State the result of the elimination process may be that a firm's UK consolidation group contains only onenon-EEA sub-group and that the non-EEA sub-group is the same as the UK consolidation group. In theory that means that there are two sets of consolidation requirements, one in relation to the UK consolidation group and one in relation to the non-EEA sub-group. However as the UK consolidation group and the non-EEA sub-group are the same, in practice this means that the additional non-EEA sub-group consolidation disappears.4
Even where the requirements for a non-EEA sub-group are absorbed into those for the UK consolidation group a firm should still make clear in its regulatory reporting that the consolidation figures relate to a UK consolidation group and a non-EEA sub-group and that they both contain the same members.
The examples in this section have so far assumed that the only EEA State involved is the United Kingdom. If a potential non-EEA sub-group that would otherwise be regulated by the appropriate regulator contains a potential non-EEA sub-group in another EEA State then the United Kingdom one is eliminated if the third country investment services undertaking4 in the UK potential non-EEA sub-group and the potential non-EEA sub-group in the other EEA State are the same. The intention here is that the EEA competent authority closest to thethird country investment services undertaking4 should be responsible for the non-EEA sub-group subconsolidation. Example 6 in BIPRU 8 Annex 3 (Examples of how to identify a non-EEA sub-group) illustrates this situation.44