– Let me start by thanking our rapporteur for his cooperative approach in the process of finding a compromise position on the text.
– I think we all agree that a more integrated European framework should be limited to a principle-based approach, building on national systems that as we have said several times have been working well until now, without disrupting them.
With regard to the amendments, I have tabled just 2 AMs:
1) on the broad definition of Covered Bonds:
– I believe that all Covered Bonds should be UCITS compliant and then those Covered Bonds which are also CRR compliant would have preferential risk weight treatment.
– I would not link the definition of Covered Bonds with the Capital Requirements Regulation. This could add complexity to the system, and potential cliff effects in case the capital requirements change.
– in the meantime the Commission has published a study which goes in our direction.
– With regard to SMEs and infrastructure loans we could think of a different type of security, clearly distinct from the Covered Bonds. But I would leave the Commission to establish the specific features of this tool.

2) on maturity:
I understand that maturity extension should be limited and non-discretionary. However, covered bond jurisdiction in which only hard-bullet covered bond are issued are rare (Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, Spain) and the situation is changing in these countries. In all other jurisdictions, soft-bullets or CPT are now the standards. Therefore, we would be in favour of allowing the CB to be extended under well-defined conditions, which change from one Member State to another one.
3) Finally, there are some amendments related to what assets could be included in the cover pool asset. Also on this matter, my approach would be to allow all CBs national systems to be included.

Facebook Comments

Post a comment