Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Global Regulatory PIC Coordination for Large Banks

Build the methodology that assigns, documents, and defends named accountability across every regulatory obligation your institution carries.

A PIC register with names but no acceptance artefacts, no scope boundary documents, and no escalation paths is a list, not a control. Regulators in EU-supervised institutions are pulling PIC registers and asking for the three things behind the name. The coordination methodology is what gets examined.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Global regulatory PIC coordination operates at the intersection of legal entity structure, named individual accountability, and cross-jurisdictional obligation mapping. When a local compliance team escalates a gap, the question is rarely whether a PIC exists. It is whether the PIC accepted the obligation formally, whether the scope boundary is documented at the right granularity, and whether the institution can demonstrate what happens when that person moves roles or jurisdictions. Large banks with 40-plus regulatory obligations across 20-plus entities face this coordination challenge at scale. The methodology that makes the register defensible under examination is not standard operating procedure anywhere. It is built by the team that owns it.

What you walk away with

Map every regulatory obligation to a named PIC using a structured methodology that survives examiner scrutiny.
Produce acceptance artefacts that document the scope boundary, the acceptance date, and the escalation path for each PIC designation.
Build a change-management process that handles PIC transitions across roles, entities, and jurisdictions without creating accountability gaps.
Establish a cross-jurisdictional coordination protocol that keeps local compliance teams and the group function aligned on PIC status.
Deliver a board-ready PIC accountability summary that shows regulators the coordination methodology, not just the list.

The 12 modules

Module 1. What Regulators Actually Test in a PIC Review

Examiners from EBA-supervised institutions are not checking whether the PIC name is correct. They are checking whether the named individual accepted the obligation, whether the scope is bounded, and whether the escalation path works. This module maps the three examination criteria to the coordination artefacts your team needs to produce, using published examination findings from EU banking supervisors as the baseline.

Module 2. Obligation Inventory and PIC Taxonomy

Before you can assign a PIC, you need an obligation inventory that is granular enough to assign and broad enough to remain manageable. This module walks through the taxonomy decision: should DORA Article 5 governance and DORA Article 11 resilience testing be one PIC or two? The answer depends on your entity structure. You will build the decision framework and apply it to your obligation register.

Module 3. The Acceptance Artefact: Structure and Legal Standing

An acceptance artefact is not an email acknowledgement. It is a structured document that captures the obligation reference, the scope boundary, the accepting individual's title and legal entity, and the date. This module covers the minimum viable structure, the legal standing questions that arise in multi-entity banks operating across civil law and common law jurisdictions, and the sign-off authority chain that gives the document weight.

Module 4. Scope Boundary Documentation at the Right Granularity

Scope boundary documents fail in two directions: too broad to be defensible, or too narrow to be practical. A PIC for cross-border payment reporting who accepts responsibility for 'all reporting obligations' will face examiner pushback. A PIC who accepts responsibility for 'MT103 messages above threshold submitted to the local competent authority via channel X' is defensible but unworkable at scale. This module builds the granularity calibration process for your obligation set.

Module 5. Cross-Jurisdictional Mapping: Entity Structure Meets Obligation Structure

When a regulatory obligation applies to a legal entity in Frankfurt, a branch in Singapore, and a subsidiary in New York, the PIC assignment question becomes structural. Which entity's PIC owns the consolidated obligation? This module covers the four common cross-jurisdictional assignment patterns used by EU G-SIBs, the documentation approach for each, and the cases where a single PIC is not viable and a coordination pair is required.

Module 6. The PIC Register: Schema, Tooling, and Audit Trail

A PIC register is a living document that needs a schema designed for examination, not for internal convenience. This module covers the field structure that satisfies EBA and ECB examination requirements, the tooling options from simple spreadsheet to GRC platform, and the audit trail requirements that prove the register was maintained and not reconstructed before an examination. You will leave with a register schema ready to implement.

Module 7. PIC Transition: Role Change, Departure, and Reorganisation

The accountability gap most commonly found in PIC reviews is not a missing name. It is a name that is 90 days out of date because the person changed roles and the register was not updated. This module builds the PIC transition protocol: the trigger events that initiate a transition, the interim accountability documentation, the handover artefact structure, and the register update procedure that keeps the coordination layer current without requiring daily maintenance.

Module 8. Local Compliance Escalation Paths and the Coordination Protocol

Local compliance teams need to know who the PIC is, how to reach them, and what to do when the PIC is unavailable or the obligation scope is disputed. This module covers the escalation path documentation format, the coordination protocol between local entities and the global PIC coordination function, and the dispute resolution procedure for scope boundary disagreements between a PIC and the local team. Includes a worked example from a cross-border data reporting obligation.

Module 9. DORA-Specific PIC Coordination Requirements

DORA introduces named accountability requirements that interact directly with the PIC coordination methodology, particularly under Articles 5 and 6 on ICT risk governance and the Article 11 resilience testing obligations. This module maps the DORA named-accountability requirements to the PIC structure, identifies where your existing methodology needs extension to cover the DORA-specific examination criteria, and builds the DORA PIC addendum to your standard acceptance artefact.

Module 10. EBA Guidelines and ECB Supervisory Expectations

EBA Guidelines on Internal Governance and the ECB supervisory expectations on management body accountability set the external standard against which your PIC methodology will be measured. This module maps the relevant guideline provisions to your coordination artefacts, identifies the gaps most frequently cited in ECB SREP findings related to named accountability, and builds the self-assessment checklist your team can run before an examination cycle.

Module 11. Board Reporting: The PIC Accountability Summary

The management body needs a view of the PIC accountability framework that is accurate, scannable, and defensible. This module covers the board-ready PIC accountability summary format, what the summary must demonstrate beyond a list of names, how to communicate open transitions and interim accountability positions without creating undue concern, and the governance committee sign-off process that gives the summary its standing as a formal board record.

Module 12. Building the Coordination Function: Roles, Cadence, and Metrics

The PIC coordination function needs a defined operating model to be sustainable. This module covers the staffing model for a global coordination team, the quarterly review cadence that keeps the register current, the metrics that demonstrate to senior management and regulators that the function is operating effectively, and the integration points with the broader compliance programme so that new regulatory obligations are captured in the PIC mapping process from day one.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Examiner pulls PIC register and asks for acceptance artefacts: Modules 1, 3, 6.

Local compliance team asks who owns a cross-border obligation and what happens if that person leaves: Modules 5, 7, 8.

DORA examination cycle requires PIC-level named accountability evidence: Modules 9, 10.

Board or senior management asks for a status view of the PIC framework: Modules 11, 12.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering the full PIC coordination methodology from obligation inventory to board reporting.
Acceptance artefact template with scope boundary fields and legal entity sign-off chain.
PIC register schema designed against EBA and ECB examination criteria.
DORA PIC addendum template for Articles 5, 6, and 11.
PIC transition protocol with trigger events, interim documentation, and handover artefact structure.
Board-ready PIC accountability summary format with governance sign-off process.
Hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, covering how to apply the methodology to your specific entity structure and obligation set.
Downloadable templates for every module.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Course access provisioned within 24 hours of purchase.

Hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, built for your entity structure and obligation set.

Before and after

Before

PIC register has names, no acceptance artefacts, no scope boundary documents, no documented escalation paths. Examiners find the gaps. Local teams escalate ownership disputes. Transitions create 60-90 day accountability gaps.

After

PIC register is examination-ready: every name backed by an acceptance artefact, every scope boundary documented at the right granularity, every transition covered by the protocol. Local teams know who to contact and what to do when the PIC is unavailable. Board has a signed accountability summary.

What happens if you do not address this

An ECB SREP finding on named accountability gaps is a material governance deficiency. It triggers a formal remediation requirement, a follow-up examination, and management body attention that absorbs significant coordination capacity. The PIC register gap is fixable before the next examination cycle. After the finding, the remediation timeline is set by the supervisor.

Who it is for

Senior coordinators and programme managers responsible for global regulatory accountability frameworks at systemically important banks. You sit between the legal entity compliance function and the group regulatory affairs team. You do not own the regulatory obligations directly. You own the process that proves named individuals do.

Who this is NOT for. Compliance professionals at single-entity firms or banks with fewer than five regulatory reporting obligations. The coordination complexity this course addresses does not exist at that scale.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. 8-10 hours across 12 modules. Most coordinators complete the methodology modules first and return to the templates and worked examples during implementation.

Why $199 is the right number

EBA training programmes cover the regulatory requirements but not the coordination methodology or the artefact structures. Internal legal and compliance teams can advise on the obligation scope but do not own the coordination operating model. External consultants can run a PIC register health check, typically at a cost that exceeds the course price by two orders of magnitude, and they leave when the engagement ends. This course builds the methodology your team operates independently.

FAQ

Does this course apply to both EU parent entities and non-EU subsidiaries with EU regulatory obligations?

Yes. The cross-jurisdictional mapping module covers the four assignment patterns used when an obligation applies across civil law and common law entities, and the scope boundary documentation approach is jurisdiction-neutral. The DORA module is EU-specific but the underlying methodology applies to any named-accountability framework.

How does the PIC coordination methodology interact with our existing GRC platform?

Module 6 covers the tooling options from spreadsheet to GRC platform. The methodology is platform-agnostic. The PIC register schema and audit trail requirements are designed to be implemented in any system that can store structured records with version history.

The course covers EBA and ECB requirements. Does it cover PRA and FCA named accountability frameworks?

The primary focus is EBA and ECB examination criteria. Module 5 includes a cross-jurisdictional note on Senior Managers Regime interactions for UK branches and subsidiaries, but SR/CR-focused teams will need to supplement with PRA-specific guidance for the SMF accountability layer.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.