|
|
These are the general comments received by CESR:
· Most respondents expressed general support for the proposals in CESR’s Consultation Paper and welcome the outcome that is supposed to be achieved.
· Two respondents raised general concerns regarding the input/output of the CEREP, primarily due to concerns regarding the statistical significance and the comparability of the data provided in the CEREP, as well as potential disadvantages for small CRAs relating to some of the indicated calculation methods. In this regard, one respondent argued strongly for the introduction of a raw data approach.
· A number of respondents worried about potential costs and efforts that might arise for CRAs as a result of providing data and calculations to the CEREP.
· Some larger CRAs also appeared to be concerned about their ability to provide historic data in the comparable format suggested by CESR in the Consultation Paper in terms of ratings categories, data categories, time periods and methodologies.
· CESR considered carefully all these issues and decided to ask CRAs to supply ’raw data’ instead of statistical data. Based on the ‘raw data’, CESR will compile the performance statistics itself. To achieve this objective, CRAs will be asked to supply the CEREP with reports containing data files characterising the ratings.
· One respondent raised the question of intellectual property rights regarding the information publicly provided in the CEREP and suggested limiting the download possibilities. CESR regards all intellectual property belonging to CRAs to be adequately protected since most of the information they are obliged to provide to the CEREP is currently published free of charge by the CRAs themselves.
· Another respondent requested that third country CRAs without systemic importance should be exempted from the disclosure requirement in Article 9(2) of the regulation. Another suggested a phase-in approach according to which CRAs would not have to fulfil disclosure requirements immediately after the regulation becomes enacted, but at some later stage. Both suggestions were considered by CESR as not meeting the spirit of the regulation and so were rejected.
· Finally, CESR noted that some remarks in the respondents’ answers would exceed the framework provided by the regulation. Therefore, they have not been taken into account.