Q1. Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. For example, should additional interpretations of the term ‘no less stringent policies’ or ‘comparable exposures’ be provided and if yes, how are these terms understood in securitisation practice?
Yes
Q2. Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q3. Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q4. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q5. Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q6. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q7. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q8. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q9. Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q10. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q11. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
ESBG would like to stress that the historical information on the court decision/litigation about the in-solvency of the borrower might not always be available for the originator and it requires a manual data collection for the requested past 3 years, which might be difficult to fulfill.
Q12. Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q13: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q14: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? More specifically, is there a need to further clarify the term ‘appropriate mitigation’ of interest-rate and currency risks and further specify any mitigation measures? Please elaborate.
Yes
Q15: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q16: On reference rates: Is the interpretation on this term deemed helpful for the interpretation of this requirement? Please provide more information on the referenced interest payments used in relation to the transaction in your entity’s practice.
Yes
Q17: On complex formulae or derivatives: Is the guidance provided sufficient to clarify the requirement or should the guidance be extended? In case of the latter, please provide suggestions on how to define complex formulae and derivatives.
Yes
Q18: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q19: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
A reversion to pro-rata should be allowed if sequential trigger events are cured.
Q20: Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q21: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q22: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q23: Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q24: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q25: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q26: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
The scope of verification should not cover the check of the originator's database or IT systems against the transaction documentation. Please define "type II error".
Q27: In particular, do you agree with the interpretation of the scope of the verification, in particular with the specification on how the size of the representative sample should be determined? Should additional aspects/parameters for determining the sample be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q28: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q29: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q30: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q31: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q32: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q33: Do you agree with the interpretation of the determination of interim credit protection payments? Do you agree with the interpretation of the criterion with respect to the ‘higher of’ condition? Should the interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
No “higher of” condition, only a) impairment in financial statements.
Q34: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q35: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q36: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q37: Do you consider necessary to provide interpretation of the term ‘breach by the investor of any material obligation'? Please provide information on such material breaches applied in securitisation practice.
Yes
Q38: Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. For example, do you consider it necessary to provide interpretation of the term ‘material breach’ of contractual obligations by the originator? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes, but please provide the details/list of “material breach”.
Q39: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q40: Do you agree that it is not necessary to further specify this criterion? If not, please provide reference to the aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q41: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q42: Do you agree with the interpretation provided? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q43: Do you agree that no other requirements are necessary to be specified further? If not, please provide reference to the relevant provisions of the STS requirements and their aspects that require such further specification. Please substantiate your reasoning.
Yes
Q44: Do you agree with the proposed amendments to the Guidelines EBA/GL/2018/09? Should additional aspects be clarified? Please substantiate your reasoning.
