We do not have specific questions about the methodology, but highlight again the points made earlier in this note regarding the possible absence of audited annual accounts for third country affiliate undertakings, and the significant burdens that arise from requiring that any such ac-counts be adjusted to reflect IFRS or the accounting standards of a particular member state. To the extent the asset position of third country firms is required to be considered for the group assets test, FIA EPTA’s view is that, where local law or regulation requires audited ac-counts of a non-EU undertaking to be produced, it should be permissible to rely on the ac-counts as prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards of the country in which the firm is incorporated (e.g. GAAP standards for certain US entities), without adjusting to IFRS / EU member state requirements.
As a preliminary matter, FIA EPTA notes that Article 8a (6)(b) empowers EBA to develop RTS for the methodology relevant to 4(b)(i) and (ii) only, and not (iii).
FIA EPTA refers to the points made earlier in this response regarding the approach to the cal-culation of the group assets test. We have set out an alternative policy proposal which would need to be reflected in the drafting of Articles 6 to 8.
We also query why intra-group exposures are limited to those with other firms conducting Relevant MiFID II Activities. Whilst we understand the need to avoid double-counting in the group test, we suggest that there may be scope to take a broader approach to intra-group ex-posures to arrive at a better assessment of the actual size and risk profile of the relevant un-dertaking.
We have already addressed these issues earlier in this response (including in section 6 in par-ticular). We do not have further comments at this stage.