Primary tabs

Financial Data and Technology Association

FDATA agrees with the principle behind this proposal. It is good for all market participants that operators are adequately insured, and we support the concept of competent authorities being in control of that regime.

However we would stress the need to minimise the administrative burden on the operators, especially in the case of start-ups who have little resource for such tasks. If the administrative burden is significant it could be seen as a barrier to entry to the market.
We have applied the proposed formula to some theoretical companies of different sizes, and we believe that the financial outcome tends to be fair. However whilst the outcome seems reasonable, we have concerns that the formula itself is overly complicated.

We would therefore encourage more work to investigate whether the same equitable outcome could be achieved through a less complicated formula.
As we noted in answer to question two, we generally support the indicators and the result they produce. However we are concerned that some companies, start-ups in particular, will find the system onerous and complicated. The EBA needs to be satisfied that a similar outcome cannot be achieved through a less complicated formula.
See answer to question 3.
See answer to question 3.
We do not believe the EBA need consider any other criteria or indicators to set a minimum amount, however we would encourage the EBA to consider criteria which would enable the setting of a maximum amount of adequate cover.
We believe that it is important that the EBA consults with the insurance industry to ensure that the calculations correspond with the current insurance industry assessment of risk for AISPs and PISPs.
[Consumer or consumer association"]"
[Issuing of payment instruments and/or acquiring of payment transactions"]"
Financial Data and Technology Association