Response to consultation on Guidelines on limits on exposures to shadow banking

Go back

2. Do you agree with the approach the EBA has proposed for the purposes of establishing effective processes and control mechanisms? If not, please explain why and present possible alternatives.

NA

3. Do you agree with the approach the EBA has proposed for the purposes of establishing appropriate oversight arrangements? If not, please explain why and present possible alternatives.

NA

4.Do you agree with the approaches the EBA has proposed for the purposes of establishing aggregate and individual limits? If not, please explain why and present possible alternatives.

We do not believe aggregated limits would be relevant: shadow banking entities differ much. Individual limits seem much more efficient and easy to calibrate.

In any case, Ucits, AIFs with a small leverage should be out of any scope. Where the limit of 0.25% is not reached, nothing should be included in the aggregate limit, if

5. Do you agree with the fallback approach the EBA has proposed, including the cases in whichit should apply? If not, please explain why and present possible alternatives. Do you think that Option 2 is preferable to Option 1 for the fallback approach? If so, why? In particular: Do you believe that Option 2 provides more incentives to gather information about exposures than Option 1? Do you believe that Option 2 can be more conservative than Option 1? If so, when? Do you see some practical

NA

6. Taking into account, in particular, the fact that the 25% limit is consistent with the currentlimit in the large exposures framework, do you agree it is an adequate limit for the fallback approach? If not, why? What would the impact of such a limit be in the case of Option 1? And in the case of Option 2?

NA

Name of organisation

BNP PARIBAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS