Response to consultation on Regulatory Technical Standards specifying the booking arrangements that third-country branches
1. Is the proposed distinction between the concepts of “assets and liabilities booked” and “assets and liabilities originated” sufficiently clear?
We respectfully request the EBA to clarify that the requirement to record “assets and liabilities originated” specifically pertains to intragroup transfers. Article 48h.4(b) of CRD VI limits the scope to items booked or held remotely within the same group. However, Article 2.1(b) of the draft RTS defines originated assets and liabilities more broadly, referring to transfers to “other entities”, which could be interpreted to include third-party transactions such as asset sales. Therefore, we recommend that the draft RTS explicitly limit this obligation to group entities only.
Additionally, the draft RTS should clarify the conditions under which a TCB is no longer required to record items in the registry book. This should include cases where risks and obligations have been transferred and the branch no longer has access to relevant data.
2. Is the proposed concept of “off-balance sheet items” sufficiently clear?
We respectfully request the EBA to confirm that the definition of 'off-balance sheet items' is aligned with the definition in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) applicable to banks. The current wording may be subject to misinterpretation due to its ambiguity.
3. Do you have any comments on the proposed bookkeeping requirements under paragraph 3?
The draft RTS should clearly state that the requirements should be applied proportionately based on the size and complexity of the TCB. We are concerned that Article 2.3(a) of the draft RTS may restrict branches from using group-wide systems and applications, especially where these are managed separately. We recommend removing the word “systems” from this paragraph to avoid unintended limitations.
5. Do you agree with the proposed treatment and measurement of assets and liabilities originated?
Please refer to our response to Question 1, which addresses both the scope of originated items and the conditions under which they should be recorded or removed from the registry book.
6. Do you have any comments on the minimum content of the registry book proposed in Article 3?
Please refer to our response to Question 1, which addresses both the scope of originated items and the conditions under which they should be recorded or removed from the registry book.
7. Do you have any comments on the approach proposed to provide information in the registry book on the risks associated to the assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet items, and how they are managed?
We believe that risk-related information should not be recorded in the registry book. Instead, such information should be managed through regular risk management processes and regulatory reporting, in cooperation with supervisory authorities. Embedding risk data into the registry book may lead to duplication and operational inefficiencies.