Response to consultation on RTS on exclusion from CVA of non-EU non-financial counterparties
Go back
Question 1: What are stakeholders’ views on the interpretation proposed?
Non-ApplicableQuestion 2: What are stakeholders’ views on the burden this might create for NFCs established in a third country? What could be a credible alternative treatment?
Non-ApplicableQuestion 3: What are stakeholders’ views on the relevance of the inclusion of a minimum frequency? What is stakeholders’ preferred option?
We welcome the institutions' right to choose to carry out the due diligence upon conclusion of a contract or quarterly. As correctly described in the draft RTS, the frequency of trading with NFCs is an important aspect. For institutions with a low volume of trading with non-EU NFCs, it is disproportionate to carry out the due diligence on a quarterly basis. Moreover, there is no risk if the due diligence is carried out upon conclusion of a contract, as the contract will remain exempt until maturity. If an NFC+ becomes NFC- during a trade, then all contracts are to be exempted from the CVA risk charge. If the contracts are not exempt, the institution's course of action is hence more conservative than required by the supervisory authorities. Nevertheless, it is disproportionate for banks with a high volume of trading with non-EU NFCs to carry out a due diligence and provide documentation each time a contract is concluded.Upload files
GBIC_comments on EBA_CP_2015_14.pdf
(93.19 KB)