Submission #9

Primary tabs

View(active tab)

Sberbank Europe AG

Q1. Would you consider beneficial to limit the S-FX provision to hedge the CET1 ratio aiming at creating a level playing field in the EU? Please provide a rationale. N.A.

Q2. Which of the three ratios is your institution hedging? N.A.

Q3. For how many and for which currencies do you currently have the permission to exclude some positions from the corresponding net open position? For how many and for which currencies do you plan to request the permission following the adoption of these guidelines? N.A.

Q4. Could you please provide the list of the 10 most material currencies if the materiality of a currency were assessed in accordance with measure A and measure B? Please provide also the value taken by measure A and measure B for those currencies. Measure A: percentage of the open position in the foreign currency (without considering any waiver) with respect to the open position in the reporting currency. Measure B: percentage of the open position in the foreign currency (without considering any waiver) with respect to the total own funds of the institution. N.A.

Q5: Do you deem the provision included in paragraph 25 clear or do you think it could lead to a different interpretation than the one outlined in the text above included in the box? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q6: Are the structural positions for which you plan to ask the permission mainly positions of type A (i.e. meeting the condition in the paragraph above), or positions of type B? Could you please provide a rough estimation of the percentage of positions of type A on the total foreign-exchange position that you will potentially include in the request to the competent authority? For example, if the institution plans to request to exclude a net position = 100, and 80 of such net open position is due to positions of type A, then the percentage of positions of type A on the total foreign-exchange position that the institution will potentially include in the request to the competent authority is 80%. N.A.

Q7. Could you please provide the percentage of the net open position that you plan to request to exclude with respect to the net open position that your institution has without any waiver? N.A.

Q8. Do you agree with the exclusion of positions that are not eligible to be structural from the sensitivity that is used for assessing the intention of the institution to hedge the ratio, or would you prefer to have those positions included although they cannot be exempted? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q9. Are there currently FX-risk positions that you kept open in the trading book for the purpose of hedging the ratio? Why did you not include such positions as part of the banking book since the main purpose of those positions is to hedge the ratio? N.A.

Q10. Do you think that by excluding positions that are non-eligible to be exempted, it will be easier for institutions to meet the requirement of keeping the sensitivity stable over time? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q11. Is your institution currently required to keep the sensitivity of the ratio stable over time where requesting the permission referred to in Article 352(2)? If not, how do you justify the intention of hedging the ratio? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q12. Do you agree with the definition of the range in paragraph 27(d)? Do you think that 0.05 is an appropriate value? N.A.

Q13. Could you provide a description of the risk-management framework within which your institution operates for managing structural positions that have been taken for hedging the ratio (e.g. how your institution currently computes the sensitivity of the ratio to changes in the exchange rate, the level of granularity at which the boundaries referred to in paragraph 27(i)(i) are defined, exc.)? Do you think that these guidelines are in line with the current risk-management within which institution operates for managing SFX positions? If not, which are the differences? N.A.

Q14. Is it easy for institutions to ‘transfer’ the concept of net open position in the context of the internal model? What are the methodologies that institutions may use for excluding positions for which they may receive the permission referred to in Article 352(2) from their internal models? N.A.

Q15. What is the size of non-monetary items that are held at historical costs with respect to the size of institution’s balance sheet? N.A.

Q16. Do you think that the formulas presented above provide a good estimate of the position that is offsetting the sensitivity of the ratio with respect to changes in the exchange rate? If no, why? Are there any adjustments that you would recommend? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q17. Do you think that is operationally feasible to compute the maximum open position and the sensitivity on a monthly basis? N.A.

Q18. Do you currently include Additional Tier 1 instruments, and Tier 2 instruments that are issued in the foreign currency in the net open position referred to in 352(2)? Please elaborate. N.A.

Q19. What is in percentage the amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments, and Tier 2 instruments that your institution issued in foreign currency with respect to the total amount of own funds of your institution? N.A.

Q20. What is the percentage of the amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments, and Tier 2 instruments that your institution issued in a foreign currency with respect to the net open position that your institution has in that foreign currency? N.A.

Q21. Is there anything in the approach outlined in these guidelines that could create issues of compatibility with the treatment foreseen in any non-EU jurisdictions in which EU institutions operate? If so, please elaborate. N.A.

Upload files 20200114 Comments to EBA Guideline.pdf

Name of organisation Sberbank Europe AG