Source: https://eba.europa.eu/node/82082/submission/63834
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 13:59:14
Document Index: 187572012

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.6', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 15', 'Art.15', 'Art.11', 'Art 12', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 407', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 407']

We are missing further specification of Art.6(6), transactions based on an index.
Furthermore, we would like to comment on two articles not covered in the Questions:
-Art. 3(6) on entities not established with the sole purpose of securitising exposures: for clarity, a “broader business enterprise” should include enterprises only active in financial business.
-Art. 15(1)(b) on the choice of modalities (a)-(e): would it be possible for a retainer to change the modality during the life of a transaction ?
For initial disclosure Art.15 has the right scope. For ongoing disclosure we will have to rely on the ESMA consultation.
There are no changes from the current wording of Art.11 in Reg 625/2014. For the sake of clarity, the provisions should stay in.
There are no changes from the current wording in Reg 625/2014 (Art 12(2)).
In practice, the secured lender would not be in a different position with regard to the security unless the default of the retainer was correlated with a decline in quality of the exposures supporting the retained position.
Yes, however the wording “proves” in Art. 16(3) to be replaced by “represents”, since prove is very difficult to provide.
Question 6: Do you consider that the provisions of Article 17 of the draft technical standards relating to a change of retainer are adequate? Yes.
The reference to Art. 407 in Art. 14(2) has to be amended, since Art. 407 will be repealed.
No, since this wording seems to create confusion between “revolving securitisation” and
“securitisation of revolving exposures”.
No, since the real question is about the perceived “bad intent” of the originator and not the extent of the difference in performance.
File Upload DSA response on EBA Retention Consultation.pdf