PFSA fully agree with the presented in this title categorisation. Especially we support point 11 which gives CA right to change category to which particular IF was assigned by applying quantitative criteria.
We have a general comment concerning this point but also other points indicating AML/CFT risk and cooperation with AML/CFT supervisors ( for example point 92 h, 94, 137-140). Full assessment of this area should depend on the range of information which is provided to compentent authorities by AML/CFT supervisors. Competent authorities neither possess AML/CFT supervisor's full opinion on every institution ML/TF risks level nor are competent to assess those risks by themselves. So in PFSA's opinion the assessment of this area should be conducted only as far as the relevant data is available.
The PFSA does not agree with proposed criteria concerning AML/CFT policies, outsourcing and new products. Details were specified in comments concerning to relevant paragraphs
In our opinion the most useful tool are stress tests prepared by CA that are tailored to the specific of capital market in each country. But in our opinion there is no need to supplement the SREP GL with catalogue of tools to be used by CA to analyse the potencial impact of cyclical economic fluctuations.
Comment concerning point 251:
Considering point 251 a and c in our opinion it is a repetition of assessment that was mentioned in the previous titles. There is no need to put the same kind of analysis that CA is obliged to conduct on the basis of previous titles just to underline that those areas should be assessed with regard to other risks.
Comment concerning point 152:
We propose to add option to point 152 of SREP GL for CA allowing not to asses Risk-to-Market in IF that do not deal on own account neither underwrite financial instrumentsand/or place financial instruments on a firm commitment basis. In ur opinion in above mentioned cases CA should be allowed not to assess RtM if it considers that IF classified to categories 1-3 is not exposed to this kind of risk.
As we explained it in the previous comments to SREP GL we still have opinion that additional own fund requirement should be communicated only as an absolute amount as set out in point 299 a. We totally do not agree for the way of comunicating this requirement presented in point 299 b. Each country was obliges to implement IFD to national law a long time ago and in our opinion it os too late to make any changes. Especially that Article 40(3) clearly explains that additional own fund requirement should be a "difference between the capital considered adequate pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article and the own funds requirement set out in Part Three or Four of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033" which means that it should be communicated as an absolute ammount. Because it is clearly indicated in point 299 that this point presents the way of communicating additional own fund requirement (Article 40(3)) we cannot agree for presented way of communicating as it is incompatible with text of article 40(3). It is also out of EBA mandate to propose in SREP GL the way of communicating to IF additional own fund requirements.
In our opinion proposed in the text supervisory benchmarks shouldn’t be presented as an obligatory tool to use by CA but should be optional. In countries where there are not so many IF operating on the market and taking into account the variety of different business models, the scale and complexity of those business models, setting such benchmarks will be excessive burden for CA which will not be very useful as IF are not easily comparable. Furthermore not all “other risks” in ICAAP calculation may be consider separately in different IF which will be an important obstacle in setting such benchmarks. In our opinion it should be directly indicated that CA may decide if they want to use benchmarks or not if they consider development of benchmarks as excessively burdensome.
We support the idea of using ICAAP and recovery plans as tools that may be used in SREP by CA. In recovery plans and ICAAP IF should identify the most important risks from their perspective and that is why they may be very useful because they may give more information amout IF risk profile than just IFR reports, especially thay are important in assesing the level of other risks which ore not covered by IFR but may be material for IF.
We have no objections to proposed guidance for setting of P2G. In our opinion it is enough to present P2G only as an absolute amount which will be consistent with method of presentation of P2R described in article 40(3) IFD.
Do you agree with the proposed criteria for the assessment of liquidity risk? Should investment firms that deal on own account, in particular market makers, be subject to more comprehensive liquidity risk assessment?
Polish FSA have no objections to the text of SREP GL to the subject of setting and communication of specific liquidity requirements.
In our opinion at the present stage there in no need to address topic of ESG more in detail. It is enough to assess ESG risk area as it was mentioned in point 88 g. There are no guidelines and it would be correct to wait first for guidelines mentioned in article 35 of IFD and for market practice to be created. In our opinion SREP guidelines cannot be more specific on this topic until special guidelines about ESG risk for IF will be prepared. Taking into account only information from EBA report about ESG risks (EBA/REP/2021/18) in our opinion there is not enough information for IF and CA to implement procedures in IF and to create tools to assess management of these risks in IF by CA.