Q4. With respect to the interpretation of the criterion in Article 20(5), should the severe deterioration in the seller credit quality standing, and the measures identifying such severe deterioration, be further specified in the guidelines? Do you believe that the interpretation should refer to the state of technical insolvency (i.e. state where based on the balance sheet considerations the seller reaches negative net asset value with its the liabilities being greater than its assets, without taking into account cash flows or events of legal insolvency), and if yes, should it be specified whether it should or should not be considered as the trigger effecting perfection of transfer of underlying exposures to SSPE at a later stage?
please see attached AFME response
Q5. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q6. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q7. Do you agree with the techniques of portfolio management that are allowed and disallowed, under the requirement of the active portfolio management? Should other techniques be included or excluded?
please see attached AFME response
Q8. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q9. Do you believe that additional guidance should be provided in these guidelines with respect to the homogeneity requirement, in addition to the requirements specified in the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/.... further specifying which underlying exposures are deemed homogeneous?
please see attached AFME response
Q10. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q11. Do you agree with this balanced approach to the determination of the expertise of the servicer? Do you believe that more rule-based set of requirements should be specified, or, instead, more principles-based criteria should be provided? Is the requirement of minimum of 5 years of professional experience appropriate and exercisable in practice?
please see attached AFME response
Q12. Should alternative interpretation of the “similar exposures” be provided, such as, for example, referencing the eligibility criteria (per Article 20(7)) that are applied to select the underlying exposures? Similar exposure under Article 20(10) could thus be defined as an exposure that would qualify for the portfolio, based on the exposure level eligibility criteria (not portfolio level criteria) which has not been selected for the pool and which was originated at the time of the securitised exposure (e.g. an exposure that has repaid / prepaid by the time of securitisation). Similar interpretation could be used for the term “exposures of a similar nature” under Article 20(10), and “substantially similar exposures” under Article 22(1). The eligibility criteria considered should take into account the timing of the comparison. Please provide explanations which approach would be more appropriate in providing clear and objectively determined interpretation of the “similarity” of exposures.
please see attached AFME response
Q13. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q14. Do you agree with the interpretation of the criterion with respect to exposures to a credit impaired debtor or guarantor?
please see attached AFME response
Q15. Do you agree with the interpretation of the requirement with respect to the exposures to credit-impaired debtors or guarantors that have undergone a debt-restructuring process?
please see attached AFME response
Q16. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q17. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q18. Do you agree with the interpretation of the predominant dependence with reference to 30% of total initial exposure value of securitisation positions? Should different percentage be set dependent on different asset category securitised?
please see attached AFME response
Q19. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q20. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q21. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q22. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q23. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q24. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q25. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q26. Do you agree with this balanced approach to the determination of the expertise of the servicer? Do you believe that more rule-based set of requirements should be specified, or, instead, more principles-based criteria should be provided? Is the requirement of minimum of 5 years of professional experience appropriate and exercisable in practice?
please see attached AFME response
Q27. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q28. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q29. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q30. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q31. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q32. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q33. Please provide further details and suggestions what type of information is available for residential loans and auto loans and leases, that could be provided under this requirement.
please see attached AFME response
Q34. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME response
Q35. 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 Regulation and their aspects that require such further specification.
