CP19/15: Contractual stays in financial contracts governed by third-country law
|
|
- Naomi Harvey
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Andrew Hoffman and Leanne Ingledew Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA 14 th August 2015 Dear Leanne and Andrew, CP19/15: Contractual stays in financial contracts governed by third-country law The British Bankers Association ( BBA ) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above consultation. The BBA is the leading trade association for the UK banking sector with 200 member banks headquartered in over 50 countries with operations in 180 jurisdictions worldwide. The members of the BBA have supported the UK and international authorities in their work to limit the risk of contagion in the event of bank failure and recognise the role of stays as an important aspect of this. As the consultation paper states, the stay provisions under the Banking Act 2009 and the Bank Recovery & Resolution Directive ( BRRD ) are necessarily limited in their geographical scope. For this reason, the BBA welcomed the announcement that the Financial Stability Board ( FSB ) intended to issue guidelines to promote cross-border recognition of resolution actions and the suggestion that FSB jurisdictions should work towards the adoption of statutory cross-border recognition frameworks. Contractual solutions to recognition should therefore be regarded as interim arrangements for a limited set of contracts and as complementary to statutory frameworks. The Bank of England ( the Bank ) has clearly taken a leadership role in the development and promotion of the ISDA Resolution Stay Protocol ( ISDA Stay Protocol ) and other similar industry initiatives. The paper notes the coordinated work by a number of FSB member countries to require firms to incorporate recognition of domestic stay regimes into financial contracts when these are governed by foreign law. Incorporation of such recognition was successfully implemented between G-18 dealers last year, largely because the requirement and timing was co-ordinated globally. This covered the majority of the uncleared derivatives documented under ISDA Master Agreements. The proposals in the consultation would result in the UK moving ahead of other jurisdictions, which would significantly increase the operational costs of implementation as well as harming the competitiveness of UK headquartered banks and their overseas subsidiaries. The 2014 G-18 global exercise also worked as it only required the main trading entities in the impacted groups to adhere to the ISDA Stay Protocol. This was based on a proportionate view of the costs and benefits of the exercise. It does not appear that any such reasonable and proportionate view is being taken on the scope, with even the smallest entities being required to adhere under the proposed rules. Given the volume of derivative exposure that is cleared, already subject to the ISDA Stay Protocol or already documented under English governing law, there is a very small tail of potential exposures subject to the Banking Act 2009 stay provisions. The risk from this tail will be further reduced with the implementation of margin for uncleared derivatives. Overall, the consultation paper proposal involves significant cost compared to this minimal exposure.
2 2 Throughout this response, it should be borne in mind that when the cleared swap population is aggregated with the swap volume covered by the existing adherence to the ISDA Stay Protocol amongst the G-18, over 90% of outstanding swap exposure is already covered. What the PRA is now focused on relates solely to the residuum. We should keep in mind the potential cost/benefit analysis of these proposals in foreclosing a potential issue with respect to a small part of this residuum, particularly since it is acknowledged that contractual provisions are an interim solution to achieving cross-border recognition of resolution actions. As such, we encourage the PRA to adopt a proportional approach. For example, consideration should be given to the adoption of a two-step de minimis threshold test for excluding certain counterparty exposures, perhaps in terms of a combination of number of transactions under a master agreement and level of exposure as denoted by counterparty type (e.g. NFC- 1 or a third-country entity equivalent). In summary our response identifies the following key points for consideration: the extremely broad geographic scope is likely to have a detrimental impact on the competitiveness of third-country subsidiaries of UK headquartered groups that is not proportional to the benefits of the rules for those that will be resolved without reference to the UK special resolution regime; the timing of implementation should be coordinated across countries that are also seeking to implement proposals similar to this consultation. This would ensure uniform standards across different jurisdictions and promote international harmonisation in an efficient manner. This in turn would have the effect of enhanced client awareness and better acceptance of the proposed changes to contractual terms in a transparent, efficient and standardised manner; and the final rules should provide precise definitions of the financial contracts subject to the provisions and identify which of those would be relevant for a temporary stay under the Banking Act 2009 (this would exclude for example overnight, cash-market and demand rights under financial contracts). In particular, the rules should provide a definition of securities to limit what might be an inadvertent extension of the rules to a very broad range of securities and related contracts which contain termination rights. They should provide transitional relief to permit non-eea central counterparties ( CCPs ) to be considered recognised (and therefore excluded) in any period before a third-country equivalence decision, and subsequent CCP recognition decision, has been taken by the European Commission. Geographical scope of the rule The extremely broad geographical and entity scope of the proposals is a matter of concern for our members. The impact of the UK implementing the contractual stay rules ahead of most other non- EEA markets is particularly concerning in relation to the proposed inclusion of the non-eea credit institutions, investment firms or financial institutions that are subsidiaries of UK authorised institutions. In addition to the general concerns raised in this letter about the proposed scope of the rule, we do not think there is justification for imposing this with respect to affiliates expected to be resolved on a standalone basis in a multiple point of entry strategy. The imposition of any such requirement will be extremely damaging to the business of such subsidiaries given there will be no equivalent requirement imposed on local competitors at the same time. As drafted, the rules require subsidiaries that are credit institutions, financial institutions and investment firms located in any non-eea jurisdiction to renegotiate contracts with clients to non-eea governing law contracts so as to include an agreement to only exercise termination rights to the extent they could under the UK resolution regime. However, in the case of a North American or 1 The obligations of EMIR are applied to entities and their counterparties on a proportional basis. EMIR therefore provides a framework to classify participants in the EU OTC derivatives markets, specifically: financial counterparties ( FC ), non-financial counterparties ( NFC ) and third-country entities ( TCE ). NFCs are further divided into NFC+ (whose OTC derivative contracts exceed a prescribed clearing threshold) and NFC- (whose OTC derivative contracts fall below such a clearing threshold).
3 3 Asian subsidiary in a multiple point of entry group structure, the entity they are trading with will not (unless the resolution strategy was to change) be resolved by the UK resolution authority and so the UK special resolution regime and whatever it mandates will be irrelevant to the relationship between the parties. Aside from the detrimental competitive impact on the subsidiaries of UK headquartered banks there is considerable volume and complexity of regulatory requirements that require banks to agree new or amended documentation with their clients. We would expect a number of challenges in ensuring client adherence, including number of competing regulatory demands, ability to continue trading with local competitors, reluctance on the part of asset managers to give up rights on resolution and difficultly in explaining UK rules to non UK customers. Given that a failure to agree revised documentation would prohibit new derivative contracts being written, this would have the impact of reducing competitiveness and/or restricting client access to risk management and investment solutions. Compounding the problem is the fact that the rule as drafted prohibits the relevant subsidiary from creating any new obligations under a financial arrangement that is governed by the law of a thirdcountry unless the recognition clause is added. For these non-eea subsidiaries, the overwhelming majority of contracts may be third-country law governed for example, US subsidiaries will be transacting almost entirely on the basis of New York law. As outlined above, client adherence will be very challenging and the fact that this requirement would apply to the majority of the non-eea affiliates contracts means that the consequences of the proposed rules for non-eea subsidiaries could be severe. Furthermore, if not already the case, in due course the third-country in question will likely implement equivalent requirements and these third-country entities will then be subject to parallel but contradictory regulatory requirements and an obligation to renegotiate contracts once again with clients, albeit on different contractual terms and with a different acknowledgement. For the above it has been assumed that for the purposes of the draft rules third-country governing law is taken to mean non-eea. It would be helpful if the final drafting of rule 2.1 made this clear as well as the meaning of laws of the UK in rule 2.2(1) which is inconsistent with the ISDA Stay Protocol that opts in to the laws of England & Wales. In addition to the above, it is noted that paragraph 1.3 of the consultation could be read as implying that the rules will be applied extraterritorially to non-uk groups. Specifically, the reference to regardless of their location could suggest that the provisions extend to financial holding companies and mixed financial holding companies that are incorporated outside of the UK. As this can surely not be the intention we assume that Section 192B FSMA ensures that qualifying parent undertakings have to be UK incorporated, and would appreciate confirmation of this. Contracts to which the requirement applies Notwithstanding our concerns with the geographic scope of the requirement, the proposed rule identifies a broadly appropriate set of financial contracts which should include the contractual terms. There are a number of areas of concern to the members of the BBA. First, the definition of financial arrangements in part 1.4 of the proposed rules encompasses financial contracts which in turn includes securities contracts. Paragraph 2.5 of the consultation indicates that securities contracts includes: i) contracts for the purchase, sale or loan of a security, a group or index of securities; ii) options on a security or group or index of securities; and iii) repurchase or reverse purchase transactions on any such security, group or index. Without clarification and in the absence of a statutory definition of securities, however, the term would apply to a broad variety of debt, equity and hybrid securities, shares, bonds and notes that contain early termination provisions. For example, securities underwriting and purchase agreements typically include termination or market out provisions enabling the underwriters or managers to terminate the agreement if certain market or issuer related events occur after the date the agreement is signed. We do not believe it is the PRA s intention to capture such agreements. Also, cash trading in securities is typically governed by a bank's terms and conditions of business which are a one way notification of terms, with acceptance implied by trading. So requiring an explicit confirmation of agreement from
4 4 counterparties would be problematic for trades which usually settle delivery verses payment. The final rules should clarify that electronic settlement can be deemed as counterparty agreement under paragraph 2.2 of the rules and that written agreement is not required. A further point in relation to the definition of securities is that the laws of some jurisdictions, for example the US Securities Act, deem guarantees to be securities. There is therefore the risk that guarantees in such markets would be caught if and to the extent that they contain termination rights. It is difficult to believe that the application of the rules to such a broad range of securities and related contracts is intended. Accordingly, it would be helpful if the PRA could clarify that such general securities contracts and guarantees are not intended to be caught by the proposed rules. It is important that the market has full clarity on what is meant by a material amendment made to the substantive terms of a relevant obligation (see paragraph 2.8 of the consultation) and we therefore encourage the PRA to consider how the final rule can address this. Furthermore, whilst we fully support the exemptions set out in paragraph 2.6 of the consultation, we are concerned that as currently drafted the rule would only exempt some and not all non-eea financial market infrastructure ( FMI ). In particular, we are concerned that the reference in paragraph 2.6 to recognised central counterparties could be interpreted as only capturing those non-eea central counterparties that have been recognised under Article 25 of EMIR. Given the significant delay in the European Commission making third-country equivalence decisions under Article 25 of EMIR, we are concerned that a significant number of non-eea central counterparties will not be considered recognised at the time the proposed PRA rule comes into force. This is likely to result in implementation challenges for firms comparable to those being faced with the implementation of Article 55 of the BRRD because, as the PRA is aware, contracts with non-eea FMI are expected to be the most problematic and difficult in terms of obtaining the FMI's agreement to amend such contracts due to the standard nature of their terms. UK firms are unlikely to be able to achieve this through bilateral negotiations. The BBA therefore strongly encourages the PRA to review the scope of the exclusion to address this problem and, at a minimum, provide a transitional provision to allow non-eea central counterparties to be considered recognised (and therefore excluded) in any period before a third-country equivalence decision, and subsequent CCP recognition decision, has been taken. Notwithstanding this, the proposed approach to new obligations is supported. Finally, we would welcome confirmation that the definition of termination rights for the purposes of the draft rules is consistent with similar terminology (Default Right) used in the ISDA Stay Protocol. Timing and structure of transitional provisions As regards the proposed timing of the rules, we note that the consultation paper pays regard to the complexities of compliance and seeks to mitigate these through transitional arrangements. Whilst this is welcome, the proposed arrangements do not offset the material challenges of compliance. First, the ISDA Stay Protocol worked because it was imposed on all participants at the same time. If the requirement is imposed on UK banks before it is imposed on most others then counterparties/client will have less incentive to agree to adhere to the ISDA Stay Protocol (this assumes it will satisfy the PRA rule), harming the competitive position of UK banks as they try to achieve compliance with a requirement no other regulator has yet implemented. This problem will be particularly acute outside the EEA where local standalone subsidiaries of UK parents will be out of line with local market requirements. Thus international coordination of implementation timeframes at the regulatory level is absolutely necessary to ensure that UK banks are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. This applies to both the commencement date for the overall regime and possibility of staggering implementation by product type. A globally-coordinated approach would increase the level of client awareness of the requirements and assist firms in achieving compliance and would therefore be the BBA s strong preference. At the very least, alignment of the implementation of the PRA rules with those expected in the US would ameliorate a number of the implementation challenges outlined in our response.
5 5 The second issue on the timing relates to the sequencing of this requirement with all of the other documentation-related projects that are currently occurring. The stays recognition requirement is very similar to the requirement in Article 55 which, under the current timetable, must be complied with by 1 st January 2016; notwithstanding the major operational challenge for banks given the seemingly inadvertently broad range of contracts within scope and short implementation timeframe. As firms will wish to sequence client outreach on both matters at the same time, this calls into question whether it will be practically possible for firms to take advantage of the proposed staggered implementation deadlines for the contractual stay rule. The effectiveness of the proposed transitional arrangements will also be impacted by the implementation timelines adopted by other countries. Ultimately, the BBA believes that the introduction of the stays requirement should be coordinated via the FSB. As noted elsewhere, this is the best way in which to achieve awareness and support for the initiative. Notwithstanding this and consistent with our comments above, we recommend that the final stage of implementation should only capture any remaining contracts which are NFC+ and exclude those which are NFC- or equivalent or, should the proposed two-step de minimis threshold test be acceptable, those counterparties. As a final point regarding implementation, it would be welcome if the PRA was to commit to reviewing the ISDA Stay Protocol, as may be amended, and equivalent industry initiatives to cover other financial arrangements as they emerge to assess the extent to which they can be deemed as providing a safe harbour for the purposes of the final PRA rules. Any official guidance and policy statements by the PRA that makes clear that it will consider an entity to have satisfied the conditions of the UK rules for any financial arrangements subject to the terms of the ISDA Stay Protocol or equivalent will promote broad adherence and allow compliance in a standardised, efficient and transparent fashion. Operational Costs As noted above, we would welcome guidance from the PRA that adherence to the ISDA Stay Protocol would be deemed a safe harbour. A consequence of the UK moving ahead of other jurisdictions is that the firms to which the PRA rules apply will bear a proportionally greater share of the burden of educating clients globally as to the reasons for the rules and the mechanics of the ISDA Stay Protocol, which is a complex document. Greater coordination of the implementation of the rules would spread the costs of outreach and education over a much broader population of firms thereby reducing the costs for firms subject to the PRA rules. This should be not overlooked by the cost-benefit analysis. Consideration of the impact of the proposals should also include an assessment of the costs for overseas clients in taking legal advice. It is not clear this client cost can be justified when they trade with an institution that will not fall under the UK authorities upon resolution or if their trading activity is immaterial to the resolution of the institution. Other Matters The proposal in section 3 to revisit requirements for record keeping once the final EBA RTS under BRRD Article 71(8) comes into effect is welcome. The approach to be taken in the interim described by paragraph 3.3 seems appropriate. Paragraph 1.14 explains the proposed approach to the enforcement of the new rules. This describes that the Bank and PRA will both monitor the effect of the rules on the activities of firms and will, if necessary, take steps to address any gaps. This will be by either a PRA supervisory requirement or Bank requirement to remove an impediment to resolution. It should go without saying that firms will expect to see coordination between the Bank and the PRA in this regard. The consultation paper is not clear that, should a firm fail to comply with the rules, this will be treated as a breach of PRA rules
6 6 and that the relevant financial arrangement would remain binding and enforceable. This should be clarified. In summary, therefore, whilst the BBA supports the underlying objectives of the proposals we strongly encourage the PRA to reconsider the geographic scope and to discuss with partners, through the FSB, how implementation and compliance could be coordinated internationally in an efficient manner that promotes awareness and understanding of the complex requirements. The BBA would be happy to assist the PRA in this and on any other matter related to the implementation of the final contractual stay rules. Yours sincerely, Adam Cull, Senior Director, International & Financial Policy +44 (0)
Cross-border recognition of resolution action. Consultative Document
Cross-border recognition of resolution action Consultative Document 29 September 2014 ii The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is seeking comments on its Consultative Document on Cross-border recognition
More informationPRA's proposal to "divide" the BTS into a PRA version and FCA version
20 December 2018 ISDA response to the PRA's Consultation Paper CP26/18 UK withdrawal from the EU: Changes to PRA Rulebook and onshored Binding Technical Standards The International Swaps and Derivatives
More informationRegulatory Briefing EMIR a refresher for investment managers: are you ready for 12 February 2014?
Page 1 Regulatory Briefing EMIR a refresher for investment managers: are you ready for 12 February 2014? February 2014 With effect from 12 February 2014, the trade reporting obligations in the European
More informationConfirmations. 1. Introduction
Confirmations 1. Introduction 1.1. The British Bankers Association (BBA) recognises and supports the importance of a robust confirmation process, acknowledging the work that ISDA in particular has done
More informationConsultation Paper CP6/18 Credit risk mitigation: Eligibility of guarantees as unfunded credit protection
Consultation Paper CP6/18 Credit risk mitigation: Eligibility of guarantees as unfunded credit protection February 2018 Consultation Paper CP6/18 Credit risk mitigation: Eligibility of guarantees as unfunded
More informationConsultation Paper CP29/17 International banks: the Prudential Regulation Authority s approach to branch authorisation and supervision
Consultation Paper CP29/17 International banks: the Prudential Regulation Authority s approach to branch authorisation and supervision December 2017 Consultation Paper CP29/17 International banks: the
More informationRe: Partially Revised FINMA Banking Insolvency Ordinance (BIO-FINMA)
8 November 2016 Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA Attn: Kaspar Ulmann Laupenstrasse 27 CH-3003 Bern By Email: regulation@finma.ch Re: Partially Revised FINMA Banking Insolvency Ordinance
More informationConsultation paper on introducing mandatory clearing and expanding mandatory reporting
Supervision of Markets Division The Securities and Futures Commission 35/F Cheung Kong Center 2 Queen's Road Central Hong Kong Financial Stability Surveillance Division Hong Kong Monetary Authority 55/F
More informationJune 2018 The Bank of England s approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL)
June 2018 The Bank of England s approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) Policy Statement Responses to Consultation on Internal MREL the Bank of England s
More information12th February, The European Banking Authority One Canada Square (Floor 46), Canary Wharf London E14 5AA - United Kingdom
12th February, 2016 The European Banking Authority One Canada Square (Floor 46), Canary Wharf London E14 5AA - United Kingdom Re: Industry Response to the EBA Consultative Paper on the Guidelines on the
More informationConsultation Paper CP1/18 Resolution planning: MREL reporting
Consultation Paper CP1/18 Resolution planning: MREL reporting January 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP1/18 Resolution planning: MREL reporting January
More informationPolicy Statement PS6/16 The PRA s approach to identifying other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) February 2016
Policy Statement PS6/16 The PRA s approach to identifying other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) February 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation
More informationNKF Banking, Finance & Regulatory Team Update 4/2017
May 12, 2017 NKF Banking, Finance & Regulatory Team Update 4/2017 I. CONTRACTUAL RECOGNITION OF STAY CHANGE OF FINMA BANKING INSOLVENCY ORDINANCE...1 II. SWISS DERIVATIVES TRADING REGULATIONS UPDATE ON
More informationBY . 5 February European Banking Authority Level 46, One Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5AA United Kingdom. Ladies and Gentlemen
BY EMAIL 5 February 2015 European Banking Authority Level 46, One Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5AA United Kingdom Ladies and Gentlemen ISDA comments on the European Banking Authority s consultation
More informationJoint Response to EBA consultation Paper (CP 51) Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting Requirements for large Exposures
D0425F-2012 26 March 2012 Joint Response to EBA consultation Paper (CP 51) Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting Requirements for large Exposures Key Points The first time adoption of the ITS should be, at
More information14 July Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities. Submitted online at
14 July 2014 Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities Submitted online at www.eba.europa.eu Re: JC/CP/2014/03 Consultation Paper on Risk Management Procedures for Non-Centrally Cleared OTC
More informationNext Steps for EMIR. November 2017
November 2017 Next Steps for EMIR For all the appropriate safeguards built into the derivatives regulatory framework after the financial crisis, certain aspects of the reforms impose unnecessary compliance
More information11 th July Summary views
Record Currency Management Limited response to European Supervisory Authorities Consultation Paper Draft regulatory technical standards on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC-derivative contracts not cleared
More informationISDA Commentary on ESMA RTS on Confirmations (in European Commission Delegated Regulation C(2012) 9593 final (19 December 2012)) 29 January 2013
ISDA Commentary on ESMA RTS on Confirmations (in European Commission Delegated Regulation C(2012) 9593 final (19 December 2012)) 29 January 2013 A Introduction We welcome the opportunity to comment on
More informationNew EU Rules on Derivatives Trading. Introduction to EMIR for insurers
New EU Rules on Derivatives Trading Introduction to EMIR for insurers Barry King & Jack Parker OTC Derivatives & Post Trade Policy Financial Conduct Authority Material in this presentation is based on
More informationISDA 2013 EMIR NFC Representation Protocol: Factors to consider in deciding whether to adhere
2nd April 2013 Practice Group(s): Finance Investment Management ISDA 2013 EMIR NFC Representation Protocol: Factors to consider in deciding whether to adhere By Stephen Moller On 8 March 2013, The International
More informationAugust 5, By
Robert dev. Frierson, Secretary Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 20 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20551 August 5, 2016 By email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov
More informationLSEG Response to European Commission consultation on the Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories
LSEG Response to European Commission consultation on the Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories INTRODUCTION London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) is
More informationSupervisory Statement SS1/16 Written reports by external auditors to the PRA. January 2016
Supervisory Statement SS1/16 Written reports by external auditors to the PRA January 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office:
More informationPolicy Statement PS25/18 Solvency II: External audit of the public disclosure requirement. October 2018
Policy Statement PS25/18 Solvency II: External audit of the public disclosure requirement October 2018 Policy Statement PS25/18 Solvency II: External audit of the public disclosure requirement October
More informationConsultation Paper CP35/16 Whistleblowing in UK branches
Consultation Paper CP35/16 Whistleblowing in UK branches September 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London
More informationFinal Draft Regulatory Technical Standards
ESAs 2016 23 08 03 2016 RESTRICTED Final Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC-derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP under Article 11(15) of Regulation (EU) No
More informationOpinion of the European Supervisory Authorities
ESAs 2016 62 8 September 2016 Opinion of the European Supervisory Authorities On the European Commission s amendments of the final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on risk mitigation techniques for
More informationPolicy Statement PS16/16 Implementing audit committee requirements under the revised Statutory Audit Directive. May 2016
Policy Statement PS16/16 Implementing audit committee requirements under the revised Statutory Audit Directive May 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation
More informationEFET Approach Regarding Unresolved EMIR Implementation Issues 2 May 2013
Amstelveenseweg 998 1081 JS Amsterdam Phone: + 31 20 520 7970 Fax: + 31 346 283 258 Email: secretariat@efet.org Website: www.efet.org EFET Approach Regarding Unresolved EMIR Implementation Issues 2 May
More informationRe: Draft Technical Standards for the Regulation on OTC Derivatives, CCPs and Trade Repositories
05 August 2012 ESMA 103 rue de Grenelle 75007 Paris France Submitted via www.esma.europa.eu Re: Draft Technical Standards for the Regulation on OTC Derivatives, CCPs and Trade Repositories Dear Sir/Madam:
More informationISDA-FIA response to ESMA s Clearing Obligation Consultation paper no. 6, concerning intragroup transactions
ISDA-FIA response to ESMA s Clearing Obligation Consultation paper no. 6, concerning intragroup transactions 1. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association ( ISDA ) and the Futures Industry Association
More informationJC /05/2017. Final Report
JC 2017 08 30/05/2017 Final Report On Joint draft regulatory technical standards on the criteria for determining the circumstances in which the appointment of a central contact point pursuant to Article
More informationD1387D-2012 Brussels, 24 August 2012
D1387D-2012 Brussels, 24 August 2012 Launched in 1960, the European Banking Federation is the voice of the European banking sector from the European Union and European Free Trade Association countries.
More informationBank Negara Malaysia Mr. Chan Kah Som Ms. Kathleen Wong
4th floor, Ropemaker Place 25 Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9LY United Kingdom +44 20 7260 2000 Phone +44 20 7260 2001 Fax www.markit.com 20 January 2014 Securities Commission Malaysia Ms. Tai Mei Ling
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) / of XXX
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX [ ](2017) XXX draft COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) / of XXX on the recognition of the legal, supervisory and enforcement arrangements of the United States of America
More informationConsultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II: Internal models modelling of the volatility adjustment
Consultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II: Internal models modelling of the volatility adjustment April 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II:
More informationPolicy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection of market risk sensitivities. October 2017
Policy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection of market risk sensitivities October 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Policy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection
More informationMAJOR NEW DERIVATIVES REGULATION THE SCIENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Regulatory June 2013 MAJOR NEW DERIVATIVES REGULATION THE SCIENCE OF COMPLIANCE Around the world, new derivatives laws and regulations are being adopted and now implemented to give effect to a 2009 agreement
More informationPolicy Statement PS3/17 The implementation of ring-fencing: reporting and residual matters responses to CP25/16 and Chapter 5 of CP36/16
Policy Statement PS3/17 The implementation of ring-fencing: reporting and residual matters responses to CP25/16 and Chapter 5 of CP36/16 February 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London
More informationConsultation Paper CP39/15 The PRA s approach to identifying other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs)
Consultation Paper CP39/15 The PRA s approach to identifying other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) October 2015 Consultation Paper CP39/15 The PRA s approach to identifying other systemically
More informationConsultation Paper CP23/14. Solvency II approvals
Consultation Paper CP23/14 Solvency II approvals October 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HH.
More informationEACH response to the ESMA discussion paper Draft RTS and ITS under the Securities Financing Transaction Regulation
EACH response to the ESMA discussion paper Draft RTS and ITS under the Securities Financing Transaction Regulation April 2016 1. Introduction...3 2. Responses to specific questions...5 2 1. Introduction
More informationEMIR 2.1 July 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EMIR 2.1 July 2018 After almost a year of discussion, on 12 June 2018 the European Parliament approved a revised proposal put forward by the European Commission to amend the terms of EMIR 1. The revised
More informationSupervisory Statement SS8/16 Ring-fenced bodies (RFBs)
Supervisory Statement SS8/16 Ring-fenced bodies (RFBs) July 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London EC2R
More informationEMIR the road ahead is clearing an update
Thursday, 7 January 2016 EMIR the road ahead is clearing an update First phase interest rate derivatives After months of internal wrangling between the European Commission and ESMA over the details on
More informationFinancial Regulation Strategy HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ. 14 April 2011.
Financial Regulation Strategy HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ Financial.reform@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk 14 April 2011 Dear Sirs, CME Group Inc. (CME Group) appreciates the opportunity to comment
More informationConsultation Paper CP2/18 Changes in insurance reporting requirements
Consultation Paper CP2/18 Changes in insurance reporting requirements January 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP2/18 Changes in insurance reporting requirements
More informationCONSULTATION PAPER ON DRAFT RTS ON TREATMENT OF CLEARING MEMBERS' EXPOSURES TO CLIENTS EBA/CP/2014/ February Consultation Paper
EBA/CP/2014/01 28 February 2014 Consultation Paper Draft regulatory technical standards on the margin periods for risk used for the treatment of clearing members' exposures to clients under Article 304(5)
More informationPolicy Statement PS32/16 Responses to Chapter 3 of CP17/16 - forecast capital data. November 2016
Policy Statement PS32/16 Responses to Chapter 3 of CP17/16 - forecast capital data November 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered
More informationEngagement between external auditors and supervisors and commencing the PRA s disciplinary powers over external auditors and actuaries
Policy Statement PS1/16 Engagement between external auditors and supervisors and commencing the PRA s disciplinary powers over external auditors and actuaries January 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority
More informationSupervisory Statement SS8/16 Ring-fenced bodies (RFBs) December (Updating February 2017)
Supervisory Statement SS8/16 Ring-fenced bodies (RFBs) December 2017 (Updating February 2017) Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office:
More informationJune 2018 The Bank of England s approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL)
June 2018 The Bank of England s approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) Statement of Policy (updating November 2016) June 2018 The Bank of England s approach
More informationClient Clearing of Derivatives in Europe a Client s Perspective.
2 September 2015 Client Clearing of Derivatives in Europe a Client s Perspective. Introduction What does this guide cover? This guide introduces the concept of derivatives clearing, the status of mandatory
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF EMIR MARGIN RULES for UNCLEARED OTC DERIVATIVES -
IMPLEMENTATION OF EMIR MARGIN RULES for UNCLEARED OTC DERIVATIVES - January 2017 update On 4 January 2017 new EU regulatory technical standards under EMIR 1 came into force that in the next two months
More informationConsultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment
Consultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment November 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency
More informationReplies to Questions
BANKING STAKEHOLDER GROUP Replies to Questions DISCUSION PAPER DP/2017/03 on the EBA s approach to Significant Risk Transfer in Securitisation 1 Replies to Questions Foreword and background The BSG welcomes
More informationFinal Draft Regulatory Technical Standards
JC 2018 77 12 December 2018 Final Draft Regulatory Technical Standards Amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a central counterparty
More informationIn particular, we wish to highlight the following points, which we elaborate on in the body of our response:
ISDA response to FCA s second consultation on Brexit: Proposed changes to the Handbook and Binding Technical Standards CP18/36 The International Swaps and Derivatives Association ( ISDA ) welcome the opportunity
More informationBBA feedback on updated FINREP technical standards of 15 March 2013
Faridah Pullara Prudential Regulatory Authority Bank of England 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA 03 June 2013 Dear Faridah, BBA feedback on updated FINREP technical standards of 15 March 2013 The BBA has held
More informationBREXIT AND ALTERNATIVE ASSET MANAGERS
BREXIT AND ALTERNATIVE ASSET MANAGERS MANAGING THE IMPACT IN THE EEA July 2018 Sponsored by CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 2 MANAGING THE IMPACT OF BREXIT 6 2.1 AIFMD 6 2.2 UCITS 8 2.3 MiFID2/MiFIR
More informationConsultation Paper CP33/15 The implementation of ring-fencing: the PRA s approach to ring-fencing transfer schemes
Consultation Paper CP33/15 The implementation of ring-fencing: the PRA s approach to ring-fencing transfer schemes 18 September 2015 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential
More informationConsultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting
Consultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting April 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates
More informationMutuality and with-profits funds: a way forward
Supervisory Statement SS1/14 Mutuality and with-profits funds: a way forward March 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8
More informationCredit risk mitigation
Supervisory Statement SS17/13 Credit risk mitigation December 2013 (Last updated on 12 December 2014) Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered
More informationPolicy Statement PS28/17 PRA fees and levies: model transaction fees, fees and FSCS levies for insurers and fees for designated investment firms
Policy Statement PS28/17 PRA fees and levies: model transaction fees, fees and FSCS levies for insurers and fees for designated investment firms December 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate
More informationBERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY
BERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY CONSULTATION PAPER IMPLEMENTATION OF BASEL III NOVEMBER 2013 Table of Contents I. ABBREVIATIONS... 3 II. INTRODUCTION... 4 III. BACKGROUND... 6 IV. REVISED CAPITAL FRAMEWORK...
More informationPolicy Statement PS10/17 Ensuring operational continuity in resolution: reporting requirements. April 2017
Policy Statement PS10/17 Ensuring operational continuity in resolution: reporting requirements April 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Policy Statement PS10/17 Ensuring operational
More information- To promote transparency of derivative data for both regulators and market participants
5 August 2012 Broadgate West One Snowden Street London EC2A 2DQ United Kingdom European Securities and Markets Authority Via electronic submission DTCC Data Repository Limited responses to ESMA s Consultation
More informationBritish Bankers Association
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART II (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLYING THE WORKING HYPOTHESIS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS
More informationConsultation Paper. Amendments to the EMIR Clearing Obligation under the Securitisation Regulation. 04 May 2018 JC
Consultation Paper Amendments to the EMIR Clearing Obligation under the Securitisation Regulation 04 May 2018 JC 2018 14 Date: 04 May 2018 JC 2018 14 Responding to this paper The European Supervisory Authorities
More informationJune 26, Japanese Bankers Association
June 26, 2014 Comments on the Consultation Paper: Draft regulatory technical standards on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC-derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP under Article 11(15) of Regulation
More informationSupervisory Statement SS12/16 Solvency II: Changes to internal models used by UK insurance firms
Supervisory Statement SS12/16 Solvency II: Changes to internal models used by UK insurance firms September 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority,
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 27 November 2017 (OR. en)
Conseil UE Council of the European Union Brussels, 27 November 2017 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0362 (COD) 14894/17 LIMITE PUBLIC EF 305 ECOFIN 1032 CODEC 1911 DRS 77 NOTE From: To: Subject:
More informationSupervisory Statement SS7/13. CRD IV and capital. December 2013
Supervisory Statement SS7/13 CRD IV and capital December 2013 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HH.
More informationFinancial Conduct Authority 25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 5HS. 26 January 2018
Financial Conduct Authority 25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 5HS 26 January 2018 (Uploaded at the Financial Conduct Authority s website) Dear Sir/Madam, Standard Chartered s Response to the
More informationAlternative Investment Management Association
Alternative Investment Management Association Mr Ashley Alder Chief Executive Officer Securities and Futures Commission 35/F, Cheung Kong Center 2 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong By email: xbr@sfc.hk Dear
More informationProposal for a regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment Contact person:
Position Paper Insurance Europe comments on the European Commission proposal for a regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment Our reference: Referring to: ECO-LTI-18-033
More informationESMA CONTRIBUTION TO THE EBA S DRAFT REGULATORY TECHNICAL STANDARDS ON CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CCPs
Date: 8 August 2012 ESMA/2012/516 Annex 1 ESMA CONTRIBUTION TO THE EBA S DRAFT REGULATORY TECHNICAL STANDARDS ON CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CCPs General comments 1. ESMA considers that it is particularly
More informationFeedback Statement Consultation on the Clearing Obligation for Non-Deliverable Forwards
Feedback Statement Consultation on the Clearing Obligation for Non-Deliverable Forwards 4 February 2015 2015/ESMA/234 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary... 2 2 Background... 3 3 Results of the consultation...
More informationTel: +44 [0] Fax: +44 [0] ey.com. Tel: Fax:
Ernst & Young Global Limited Becket House 1 Lambeth Palace Road London SE1 7EU Tel: +44 [0]20 7980 0000 Fax: +44 [0]20 7980 0275 ey.com Tel: 023 8038 2000 Fax: 023 8038 2001 International Financial Reporting
More informationComments on the Financial Stability Board s Consultative Document Effective Resolution of Systemically Important Financial Institutions
September 2, 2011 Comments on the Financial Stability Board s Consultative Document Effective Resolution of Systemically Important Financial Institutions Japanese Bankers Association We, the Japanese Bankers
More informationESMA consultation on the review of the technical standards on reporting under Article 9 of EMIR
Amstelveenseweg 998 1081 JS Amsterdam Phone: + 31 20 520 7970 Email: secretariat@efet.org Website: www.efet.org ESMA consultation on the review of the technical standards on reporting under Article 9 of
More informationDerivatives Regulation
Derivatives Regulation Douglas Donahue Partner +1 212 506 2562 ddonahue@mayerbrown.com Jerome Roche Partner +1 202 263 3773 jroche@mayerbrown.com Ed Parker Partner +44 20 3130 3922 EParker@mayerbrown.com
More informationVia online submission to ESMA: The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) 20 May 2016
Fourth Floor One New Change London EC4M 9AF Via online submission to ESMA: www.esma.europa.eu The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) 20 May 2016 Dear Sirs ESMA consultation paper: ESMA guidelines
More information(Text with EEA relevance)
1.12.2015 L 314/13 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/2205 of 6 August 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical
More informationTransposition of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II: response to the consultation
Transposition of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II: response to the consultation February 2017 Transposition of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II: response to the consultation
More informationRe: Comment Letter on the Further Proposed Guidance Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations (RIN 3038-AD85)
February 14, 2013 Via Electronic Mail: secretary@cftc.gov Ms. Melissa Jurgens Secretary of the Commission Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW Washington, DC
More informationConsultation on an Effective Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions in Hong Kong: Regulations on Protected Arrangements
By E-mail Consultation on Protected Arrangements Regulations Financial Services Branch Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau 24/F Central Government Offices 2 Tim Mei Avenue Tamar, Hong Kong E-mail:
More informationFBF S RESPONSE. The FBF welcomes the opportunity to comment EC consultation on a revision of the Market Abuse directive.
Numéro d'identification: 09245221105-30 July, 23 rd 2010 EUROPEAN COMMISSION PUBLIC CONSULTATION A REVISION OF THE MARKET ABUSE DIRECTIVE FBF S RESPONSE GENERAL REMARKS 1. The French Banking Federation
More informationFinal Report. Amendments to the EMIR Clearing Obligation under the Securitisation Regulation. 12 December 2018 JC
Final Report Amendments to the EMIR Clearing Obligation under the Securitisation Regulation 12 December 2018 JC 2018 76 Date: 12 December 2018 JC 2018 76 Table of Contents Introduction 5 1. The clearing
More informationFinancial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance the derivatives angle
July 2016 Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance the derivatives angle Introduction Following two rounds of public consultation on proposals to establish a resolution regime for financial institutions
More informationSupervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment. October 2018 (Updating June 2015)
Supervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment October 2018 (Updating June 2015) Supervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility
More informationFOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS ONLY, NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO RETAIL CLIENTS THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS ONLY, NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO RETAIL CLIENTS THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE Draft regulatory technical standards on risk-mitigation techniques
More informationFinal Report. Clearing Obligation under EMIR (no. 6) 27 September 2018 ESMA
Final Report Clearing Obligation under EMIR (no. 6) 27 September 2018 ESMA70-151-1768 Table of Contents Introduction 5 1 Current temporary exemption 7 2 Proposed amendment 8 3 Further considerations 9
More informationCOUNTERPARTY CLEARING SYSTEM IN EUROPE
TR É S O R I S K C O N S E I L COUNTERPARTY CLEARING SYSTEM IN EUROPE IAFEI MANILA OCT 2014 NEW REQUIREMENTS GENERAL CONCEPT FOR ALL INSTITUTIONS The new regulation comes into force during 2013 and 2014.
More informationSeptember 28, Japanese Bankers Association
September 28, 2012 Comments on the Consultative Document from Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions : Margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared
More informationJuly 10 th, Dear Sir/Madam:
July 10 th, 2015 The European Banking Authority The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority The European Securities and Markets Authority RE: Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on risk-mitigation
More informationPolicy Statement PS1/18 Strengthening individual accountability in insurance: optimisations to the SIMR. February 2018
Policy Statement PS1/18 Strengthening individual accountability in insurance: optimisations to the SIMR February 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Policy Statement PS1/18
More informationHong Kong regulators publish proposed rules for mandatory clearing and expanded mandatory reporting
October 2015 Hong Kong regulators publish proposed rules for mandatory clearing and expanded mandatory reporting On 30 September, the HKMA and SFC published their proposed next steps in the regulation
More information