The European Banking Federation provides its general comments and answers to specific questions on European Banking Authority’s Regulatory Technical Standards.
The EBF strongly believes that it is important that the record keeping requirements addressed in the draft RTS build on existing data recording and reporting obligations. This would avoid unnecessary burdens for the addressees of the obligation and prevent that the existing parallel obligations ultimately produce confusing and conflicting data.
Notwithstanding the EBA’s intention to avoid duplications and inconsistencies, the new data record obligations will result in additional burden. The new obligation will require institutions to make substantial changes to existing data recording processes and to adjust existing systems and databases. The changes to be made will be very challenging and time consuming. This holds particularly true if the specific data fields are not aligned with the fields used under the obligation to report derivative transactions to trade repositories under EMIR in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) no. 148/2013 (TR-reporting obligation) (taking into account the changes proposed in the current review) and under the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR); and if the EBA requirement is interpreted as an obligation to set up a single central database.
EBF further notes that the annex of the RTS does not distinguish sufficiently between transaction and master agreement related information. This should be further clarified in order to ensure that the resolution authority obtains the most relevant information for the decisions it will have to take in the event of resolution.
Against this background EBF sees the need for the following changes and additions to be made:
-
Closer alignment of the list of data elements to be recorded (Annex) to data reporting obligations under EMIR and under the future SFTR.
-
Introduction of an adequate phase-in period for the implementation of the record keeping requirement in order to enable institutions to make the necessary adjustments to their systems. This would also allow for a better alignment of these record keeping requirements with TR-reporting obligations still under development.
-
Clarification that there is no obligation to establish a specific database structure. The EBA should delete the reference to a “central database” in the recitals. Defining the technology solution that institutions will choose in order to implement the record keeping requirements goes beyond the mandate that was given to the EBA in the BRRD.
-
Overall, the information regarding financial contracts (Annex) should be disaggregated in two sections: one regarding the framework contract (at counterparty level) and other relative to each operation (operation level).
Full response
© EBF
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article