Skip to main content
Response to draft Guidelines on the STS criteria for ABCP securitisation
Go backQ5. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ6. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ7. Do you agree with the techniques of portfolio management that are allowed and disallowed, under the criterion of the active portfolio management? Should other techniques be included or excluded?
please see attached AFME responseQ8. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ9. Do you agree with the interpretation of the criterion with respect to exposures to a credit impaired debtor or guarantor?
please see attached AFME responseQ10. Do you agree with the interpretation of the criterion with respect to the exposures to credit-impaired debtors or guarantors that have undergone a debt-restructuring process?
please see attached AFME responseQ11. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ12. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ13. Do you agree with the interpretation of the predominant dependence with reference to 30% of total initial exposure value of securitisation positions? Should different percentage be set dependent on different asset category securitised?
please see attached AFME responseQ14. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ15. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ16. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ17. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ18. Do you believe that additional guidance should be provided in these guidelines with respect to the homogeneity requirement, in addition to the requirements specified in the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/.... further specifying which underlying exposures are deemed homogeneous?
please see attached AFME responseQ19. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ20. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ21. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ22. Do you agree with this balanced approach to the determination of the expertise of the seller? Do you believe that more rule-based set of requirements should be specified, or, instead, more principles-based criteria should be provided? Is the requirement of minimum of 5 years of professional experience appropriate and exercisable in practice?
please see attached AFME responseQ23. Should alternative interpretation of the “similar exposures” be provided, such as, for example, referencing the eligibility criteria (per Article 24(7)) that are applied to select the underlying exposures? Similar exposure under Article 24(18) could thus be defined as an exposure that would qualify for the portfolio, based on the exposure level eligibility criteria (not portfolio level criteria) which has not been selected for the pool and which was originated at the time of the securitised exposure (e.g. an exposure that has repaid / prepaid by the time of securitisation). Similar interpretation could be used for the term “exposures of a similar nature” under Article 24(18), and “substantially similar exposures” under Article 24(14). The eligibility criteria considered should take into account the timing of the comparison. Please provide explanations which approach would be more appropriate in providing clear and objectively determined interpretation of the “similarity” of exposures.
please see attached AFME responseQ24. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ25. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ26. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ27. Do you agree that the external verification should only cover the criteria referenced in paragraphs (9), (10) and (11) of Article 24, or should it cover all criteria mentioned in Article 24? Do you agree with the approach on determining the frequency of the external verification?
please see attached AFME responseQ28. Concerning the sample, should a minimum sample size be prescribed (in absolute or relative terms)? Should a statistical method for evaluating the outcome of the external verification of the sample be specified? Do you agree that it should be representative covering all underlying exposures of all transactions? Do you see merit in further specifying that the sample should be representative by properly representing the various asset categories of the transactions; or that representativeness may be assumed when the sample is gathered via a random selection?
please see attached AFME responseQ29. Do you agree with the interpretation of this requirement, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should other aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ30. Should the calculation of the weighted average life follow the concept of weighted cash flows or of weighted (residual) maturities? Should there be a facilitation for a simplified calculation of the WAL (e.g. to use the longest contractually possible remaining maturity of the exposures in a transaction as an upper bound)?
please see attached AFME responseQ31. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ32. Are there any other market practices – apart from the ones being covered by the clarification provided in the guidance - which would also fall within the conditions of Article 26(4), while from an economical point of view those should not be treated as resecuritisations? Do you agree with the clarification which credit enhancement is to be considered as “establishing a second layer of tranching”?
please see attached AFME responseQ33. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ34. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ35. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning. Should the “specified events” referred to in Article 26(7)(e) be specified in more detail e.g. as including triggers with regard to the creditworthiness of the sponsor?
please see attached AFME responseQ36. Do you agree with the interpretation of this criterion, and the aspects that the interpretation is focused on? Should interpretation be amended, further clarified or additional aspects be covered? Please substantiate your reasoning.
please see attached AFME responseQ37. Do you agree that no other requirements are necessary to be specified further? If not, please provide reference to the relevant provisions of the STS Regulation and their aspects that require such further specification.
please see attached AFME responseName of organisation
Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME)
