Response to consultation on joint Guidelines for the prudential assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings

Go back

Question 2. Do you consider the level of detail used in the draft Guidelines to be appropriate?

We do not always consider the level of detail of the draft Guidelines appropriate. See in our answer to question 1 for some examples where we consider the draft Guidelines to go beyond the scope of the Qualifying Holding Directive. On the other hand more details could be provided e.g. on the specifics of the notification procedure in order to achieve a uniform process.

Question 3. Which approach identified above do you consider to be the most appropriate, Option A or Option B? Please explain your answer.

We prefer neither A nor B as we find that the application of these options is complicated because of the lack of clear definition of the control criterion and as to at which level in the corporate chain the criterion is to be applied. We would prefer to solely apply the multiplication criterion. The criterion is clear and and easily applied. Pursuant to criterion, target supervisors should multiply the percentages of the holdings across the corporate chain and, if the result leads to a holding of 10% or more, a qualifying holding will be deemed to be acquired indirectly.

Question 4. Would you propose a different test for assessing whether a qualifying holding is being acquired indirectly? Please explain your answer.

Please see the answer to question 3.

Upload files

CONS54.pdf (597.46 KB)

Name of organisation

Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken