Search QAs

Regarding the performance scenarios shown in an investment product's KID for a product with SRI 1: - Can the performance scenarios somewhat be considered commensurate with the "reality"? That a given scenario is in reasonable proportion to the resulting amount? - For example, is the actual outcome of SEK 0 after one month realistic or possible when the stress scenario that can be said to have occurred states that an investment of SEK 100,000, according to the information in KID, yields SEK 2.5 million after one month? - Finally, is it at all possible that a the stress scenario for a procuct with SRI 1 as in my example shows such a high positive result? 

Please can you advise how P&L generated from (1) Repo and (2) Reverse Repo should be reported in S.09.01, assuming the Repo and Reverse Repo both counterpart is ECB.

Point 16 of Annex IV contains a comprehensive catalogue of criteria for the appropriateness of benchmarks or proxies when they are used to calculate the performance scenarios. There is no corresponding catalogue for the appropriateness of benchmarks or proxies used to calculate the MRM (see point 7 of Annex II, Part 1). Does this mean that benchmarks and proxies used to calculate the MRM are subject to different (lower) appropriateness requirements?

Is it correct that this point applies first from 1 January 2023? (2) If so, are KIDs created before that date covered by any corresponding rule? For example, can a stress scenario for a KID created in 2018 show a better (higher) value during 2020 than the value of the unfavourable scenario? If a stress scenario for a KID created in 2018 cannot show a better (higher) value during 2020 than the value of the unfavourable scenario, where is this regulated?

Regarding the calculations of the Stressed scenario for Category 2 discussed in Annex IV in the delegated regulation 2017/653 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02017R0653-… the confusion comes from paragraph 11, which says “…where zα is a proper selected...

In EU Regulation 2015/35, specifically in Article 180, paragraphs 13 and 16, beneficial capital treatment is granted to Qualified Infrastructure Investment and Qualified Infrastructure Corporate Investment. Notably, this regulation permits unrated assets to maintain a minimum CQS of 3, provided they are classified under Articles 164a and 164b. Our inquiry pertains specifically to unrated assets that meet the criteria outlined in Article 164a, Article 164b, Article 180, paragraphs 12(a) and 12(b), as well as Article 180, paragraphs 15(a) and 15(b). According to EIOPA Q&A 650, the CQS should accurately reflect the calibration used in the Solvency II Standard Formula (SF SCR) calculation. Given that regulatory requirements allow for beneficial treatment, Option 1 suggests that a CQS of 3 should be reported as this is the CQS feeds into SF SCR calculation. However, there is an opposing viewpoint that, since the asset is unrated, the capital beneficial treatment based on CQS 3 should be inferred rather than explicitly reported, leading to a Option 2 to report a CQS of 9, despite the SF SCR is calculated based on CQS 3. What is the regulator's expectation when a standard formula insurance firm submits CQS information for the unrated asset in question? Should the CQS be reported as CQS = 3 (Option 1) or CQS = 9 (Option 2)?

Can you clarify Q&A 975, that the appropriate valuation method for CIC 72 or current accounts is “QMP” valuation method unless specific situations apply in relation to the exchange rate used? Per Q&A 1803 "1 - quoted market price in active markets for the same assets" and "3 — alternative valuation methods" are usually the valuation methods used for CIC7# assets. Can you confirm that where "deposits [are] exchangeable for currency on demand at par...without penalty or restriction" (per the ITS definition of CIC72) "1 - quoted market price in active markets for the same assets" is the appropriate valuation method without regard to the fact that the deposit itself (i.e. the asset) is not an asset quoted on an active market?

With regard to the 2023/894 ITS and the amended definition of insurance and intermediaries’ receivables (S.02.01.C0010/R0360) no longer stating "past due", can you clarify that premium receivables should still be included within the technical provisions, or now included on the balance sheet and included in the Counterparty Default Risk sub-module?

This question is referred to the answer to Q&A 2299 (how to assign cic code for ETC (Exchange Traded Commodity) instruments. EIOPA expected that ETCs need to be reported with CIC Category 5 "Structured notes" and the sub-category that fits the risk exposure (like "commodity risk - 56") or "other". But this approach doesn't match with Annex V (Definitions of the CIC Table) Could you please explain criteria to define and ETC like a Structured bond. If I have to report an ETCs (i.e. investing in commodities like gold) and in the fund's prospectus is reported that the securities are “transferable securities” for the purpose of the UCITS Directive why it cannot be defined as cic code 49 or 46?