Response to consultation on ITS amending Commission Implementing Regulation EU 2016-2070 on Benchmarking

Go back

Do you agree that the combined split of rating and country in template C103 can generally be replaced by a simpler rating split per model (i.e., rating distribution) in template 105, which will cover all models in the scope of the benchmarking exercise (HDP and LDP) without losing explanatory information on the variability of benchmarking parameters? Is there any data point collected in the new template 105.04 that involve significant IT costs or burden and should be dropped?

See pdf attachment

Do you agree that SLE portfolios should be reported in a separate exposure class? Do you agree that the proposed level-2 breakdown on (a) the proposed sectors of counterparties and (b) the proposed types of exposures (i.e. categories of specialized lending) might be relevant components to explain the variability of risk parameters? Which option do you prefer with respect to the rating split under the slotting approach?

See pdf attachment

Do you expect that the LDP sub-portfolio characterized by eligible covered bods will cover a material share of exposure? Do you expect that the separation of these exposures can contribute to explain RWA variability?

See pdf attachment

Do you think the alternative portfolio split would provide for a higher explanatory power as regards RWA variability induced by differences in CRM usage?

See pdf attachment

Do you expect that the proposed NACE Code breakdown for HDP sub-portfolios will provide more explanation for RWA variability for a material share of exposure? Do you expect that the separation of these exposures can contribute to explain RWA variability in the according HDP portfolios or do you consider the current split using only NACE code F sufficient? Does the selection of a subset of NACE codes significantly reduce the burden of the data collection (compared to a comprehensive collection of all NACE codes)?

See pdf attachment

Do you expect that the proposed ILTV buckets for HDP sub-portfolios secured by immovable property will provide more explanation for RWA variability for a material share of exposure? Do you expect that the separation of these exposures can contribute to explain RWA variability in the according HDP portfolios?

See pdf attachment

Do you agree with the Additional pricing information requested? Please, provided detailed explanation for your answer.

See pdf attachment

Do you agree with the simplification introduced in the time setting of the references date for the instruments?

See pdf attachment

Do you have any concerns on the clarity of the instructions?

See pdf attachment

Can you please provided detailed explanation of the instruments that are not clear and a way to clarify the description?

See pdf attachment

Upload files

Name of organisation

AFME and ISDA (joint response)