Response to consultation Paper on draft ITS amending the benchmarking Regulation

Go back

Q1. Do you agree with the necessity to complement the quantitative data collection with qualitative templates?

Please see attached.

Q2. In your view, which aspects, from a LDP perspective, are relevant to investigate from a qualitative perspective, where there might be different practices leading to different impact across institutions?

Please see attached.

Q3 Do you have any concerns on the three changes applied to the credit risk IRB templates? In particular, do you believe the extension of the data collection for hypothetical RWA will add a significant burden to the exercise?

Please see attached.

Q4: Stakeholders are invited to express their view on the new reference date specification with respect the precedent method to specify the reference dates for the exercise.

Please see attached.

Q5: Stakeholders are invited to express their view on the implementation of the Benchmarks Regulation, in terms of which rate to apply in the instruments in the market risk exercise.

Please see attached.

Q6. Do you see any issues or lack of clarity in the definition of the data points of template 111.01?

Please see attached.

Q7. Do you see the need to adjust or add any variable for the intended outcome? Please specify.

Please see attached.

Q8. Would you see any particular problem in filling some of the data requested? For which reasons? Please give your comments related to the PD 12month and the economic scenario in question 7.

Please see attached.

Q9. Do you see any issues or lack of clarity in the definition of the data points of template 111.02? Please explain

Please see attached.

Q10. Do the categorisations reported above reflect the approach applied by your bank, in incorporating forward looking information? If not, please explain what are the main differences.

Please see attached.

Q11. For banks applying Approach 3, what will be, in your view, an appropriate approach for reporting the data related to the PD in scenario 0 (i.e. the PD considered in the application of the impairment requirements under IFRS 9)? Do you think that, (if available) a probability weighted average PD represents an appropriate proxy? Do you think that the PD used for the SICR assessment represents an appropriate proxy? If not, what other approach do you suggest to report this data?

Please see attached.

Q12. Do you believe that additional macro-economic variables should be tested in future exercises and if yes, which ones would be appropriate in the context of a benchmarking exercise?

Please see attached.

Q13. Do you see any issues or lack of clarity in the definition of the data points of template 111.03?

Please see attached.

Q14. Do you believe the reduction of the number of facilities to five significantly reduces the burden of the data collection?

Please see attached.

Q15. Do you agree with the list of the three qualitative triggers, or do you believe one indicator currently classified as “5 other indicators” is more important and should deserve a specific field?

Please see attached.

Upload files

Name of the organization

Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME)