Skip to main content
Response to consultation Paper on Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on own funds and eligible liabilities
Go backWhat is the percentage of senior non-preferred and senior preferred liabilities in relation to total liabilities for the institution(s) you represent? Within the senior-preferred layer, what is the percentage of eligible to non-eligible liabilities for this/these institution(s)?
The CRR2 introduces new granular eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities related, inter alia, to acceleration, set-off and netting, reference to write down and conversion etc. and the requirement that the instrument be subject to permission. However, some of these criteria are grandfathered indefinitely for existing instruments (legacy instruments) under Article 72b(2)(n) or Article 494b(3) CRR.
N/AWhat is the quantitative significance and maturity distribution, for the institution(s) you represent, of unsubordinated instruments that are eligible liabilities solely as a result of the grandfathering provisions under Article 72b(2)(n) or Article 494b(3) of the CRR, compared to unsubordinated instruments qualifying under their own right as MREL, total MREL eligible liabilities and total liabilities? Do these instruments contain call options?
N/AOnce the stock of legacy instruments described above is exhausted, instruments will only be eligible to MREL if they meet all eligibility criteria, including the new criteria. Do you expect that, as a result, going forward the amount of eligible liabilities as a share of senior instruments, would be narrowed concomitantly with the scope of the permission requirement?
N/AIt is recalled that, as per the mandate to the EBA, the RTS on eligible liabilities for the purpose of indirect funding has to be fully aligned with the one on own funds. Are the interactions and consequences of the rules on direct and indirect funding appropriately described and captured for eligible liabilities and resolution groups?
Please see attached response. Would you agree that the existing percentage values for the thresholds are still suitable? If not please provide evidence and rationale for having different values.
N/ADo you consider that the general prior permission as per the 2nd subparagraph of Article 78(1) CRR, with the limits included therein, would be sufficient to cater for permissions to repurchase own funds instruments then to be passed on to employees as part of their remuneration (former Article 29(4) of the RTS), in addition to market making and other repurchase activities? Would you consider any derogations to be needed (in particular in terms of limits and one-year timeframe)?
Please see attached response. Do you agree that the provision regarding permission for immaterial amounts to be called, redeemed or repurchased (former Article 29(5) of the RTS) is no longer needed? If you disagree please provide a substantiated rationale.
N/AIs the information required appropriate? Please specify any change you would make and why. Please consider consistency with the prior permission regime for eligible liabilities instruments.
Please see attached response. Do you consider the four months deadline appropriate? Would you consider making a difference between the individual permissions pursuant to Article 78(1) points (a) or (b) CRR and the general prior permission pursuant to the 2nd subparagraph of Article 78(1) CRR? In case the four months deadline was kept for first time applications for general prior permission, would you see merit in: a) shortening the deadline for applications for the renewal of the permission? b) adjusting the content of the application to be submitted to the competent authority?
Please provide some rationale. Also, please consider consistency with the prior permission regime for eligible liabilities instruments.
Please see attached response. Do you consider the deduction rules appropriate for eligible liabilities? If not, what would be the rationale for departing from the rules applicable for own funds?
Please see attached response. Do you agree that general prior permissions should not be confined only to market making? Why would liability management operations not be sufficiently covered, as for own funds, via ad-hoc permissions? Please substantiate based on concrete experience.
Please see attached response. Is the maximum limit of 3% of the total amount of outstanding eligible liabilities instruments sufficient? If not, please explain which percentage value of outstanding eligible liabilities instruments you would suggest and justify based on your experience.
Please see attached response. Would you see some good rationale for exempting certain types of entities from the limits foreseen in Article 32c? Please describe cases and substantiate your rationale.
N/ADo you think the information required in Article 32d is appropriate? Please precise any change you would suggest and why. Please consider consistency with the prior permission regime for own funds.
Please see attached response. Do you consider the four months deadline in Article 32f appropriate? Would you consider making a difference between the individual prior permission pursuant to Article 78a(1) points (a), (b) or (c) CRR and the general prior permission pursuant to the 2nd subparagraph of Article 78a(1) CRR? In case the four months deadline was kept for first time applications for general prior permission, would you see merit in: a) shortening the deadline for applications for the renewal of the permission? b) adjusting the content of the application to be submitted to the competent authority?
Please provide some rationale. Also, please consider consistency with the prior permission regime for own funds.
Please see attached response. Name of the organization
Association for Financial Markets in Europe
