Response to consultation Paper on specific supervisory reporting requirements for market risk

Go back

Question 1. The ‘thresholds’ template requires a breakdown of the ‘on- and off-balance sheet business subject to market risk’ into on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet business. Is that breakdown clear, or would you need ad-hoc definitions for differentiating ‘on-balance sheet items’ from ‘offbalance sheet items’ to ensure a proper implementation of the reporting requirements? Are there particular challenges or a burden involved in differentiating between on- and off- balance sheet items?

In our view, the proposed breakdown is not completely clear. Therefore, institutions would require a detailed definition (e.g. a list of the respective instruments and examples) by the EBA to correctly distinguish on-balance from off-balance sheet items, as provided for in draft template C 90.00.

Question 2. Are the scope and level of application of the reporting requirements and the content of the templates and the instructions clear?

For reporting on a consolidated basis, in particular with regard to template C 91.00, it is not clear how to deal with different approaches applied by individual entities in the same scope of regulatory consolidation (e.g. entity A uses the MKR-ASA, entity B uses the simplified approach, while entity C does not have a trading book at all).
As we understand the proposed draft ITS, the consolidating entity has to calculate the group-wide own funds requirements for market risk using the MKR-ASA. In this context, we see the need for clarification by the EBA whether it is permissible for an entity to report template C 91.00 on an individual basis by using e.g. the simplified approach, while at the same time being covered by the MKR-ASA on a consolidated basis as part of the banking group.

Name of the organization

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Division Bank and Insurance