Regulatory colleges are a shadowy and peculiar invention. Their presumable value is to allow the people who run the European Union to keep a tight grip on national regulators.

In a recent report the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has concluded that in most European Economic Area (EEA) countries, regulatory colleges (clubs of regulators) have exchanged information, assessed risks, and developed emergency plans and co-ordination arrangements well. It is expecting further mighty efforts with the implementation of the Solvency II preparatory guidelines.

EIOPA does not think that these colleges have adequate resources, so it intends to lend them more support. It seems fairly pleased with the fact that "a minority of the 92 colleges are on track on all tasks."

EIOPA wants to keep on working closely with group supervisors to improve the quality of the colleges' work. They also want to improve the 'status' of their work as well, but do not explain what they mean by this.

Colleges are permanent 'co-ordination' structures that regulatory authorities involved in the supervision of banking and other financial groups are forced to join. In other words, they are multilateral groups of supervisors that look at the activity of financial institutions that operate across borders. They are a mechanism for the exchange of information between home and host authorities, for the planning and performance of key supervisory tasks in a coordinated manner or jointly, including all aspects of ongoing supervision, and also for the preparation for and the handling of emergency situations. One of the fundamental tasks for supervisory authorities as members of colleges is reaching joint decisions on the risk-based capital adequacy of cross-border groups and their EEA subsidiaries.

EIOPA has written in its report: "With the introduction of Solvency II in 2016 Colleges of Supervisors (colleges) will become the principal tool for co-operation and co-ordination of supervisory activities in the context of cross-border group supervision. Both group and solo supervisors recognise the added value of group supervision for their supervisory activities: the substantial increase in the number of physical meetings and telco's [sic] in 2014 is an indicator of this."

The report contains only one real criticism, although its chaotic grammar obscures it: "Most colleges have encountered difficulties in assessing the progress of non-internal model groups in preparing for Solvency II. For instance in 2014 around 25% of the colleges did not discuss the progress and consistency in implementation of the preparatory guidelines by the group; moreover, by the end of 2014, another 55% of the colleges had still not provided feedback to the group concerning their preparedness for Solvency II."