Examples of using STS securitisations in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
Definitions and Criteria for STS Securitisations.
Treatment of STS securitisations under SEC-SA.
A more risk-sensitive treatment of STS securitisations.
Treatment of STS securitisations under SEC-ERBA.
It is necessary that investors also exercise appropriate due diligence with regard to STS securitisations.
In the case of STS securitisations, the STS notification referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation;
The Revised Basel Framework does not currently provide for a more risk-sensitive treatment for STS securitisations.
STS securitisations will free up capacity on banks balance sheets and provide investment opportunities for investors.
A number of market participants expressed a preference for the establishment of private bodies to act as"certifiers" or"control bodies" for STS securitisations.
For STS securitisations, investors should also perform a due diligence on the compliance with STS requirements.
This proposed Regulation distinguishes between provisions applicable to STS securitisations and those applicable to STS and non-STS securitisations. .
For STS securitisations, the EBA re-calibrated downwards the 3 approaches developed by the BCBS for the Revised Basel Framework.
The Commission also believes that the more beneficial prudential treatment in banking andinsurance will give investors sufficient incentives to invest in STS securitisations.
In the case of STS securitisations, where the securitisation ceases to meet the STS requirements or where competent authorities have taken remedial or administrative actions;
The 3 approaches are re-calibrated for all tranches in order to generate lower capital charges for positions in transactions qualifying as STS securitisations.
Establishing more risk sensitive capital charges for STS securitisations, will help to build confidence in the market and free up the balance sheets of banks to provide additional financing.
They argued that the mandatory recourse to external parties could contribute to overcome the current stigma attached to securitisations andto build investors' confidence in STS securitisations.
It therefore does not mean that some non STS securitisations, for instance implying less simple structures, could not be formed of underlying exposures with appropriate credit quality features.
The outcome of these discussions should be made public on the websites of the ESAs so as to help originators, sponsors, SSPEs andinvestors assess STS securitisations before issuing or investing in such positions.
These provisions are intended to allow the ESA's to provide, for issuers of STS securitisations, the situations and conditions justifying exclusions from the EMIR clearing and margining requirements.
The involvement of third parties in helping to check compliance of a securitisation with the STS requirements may be useful for investors, originators, sponsors and SSPE's andcould contribute to increase confidence in the market for STS securitisations.
At the same time, market participants are not obliged to issue and invest in STS securitisations: originators can still create non-STS securitisations or securitisations that are more simple, transparent and standardised then the STS criteria require.
The first step is to develop a common substantive framework for securitisations for all participants in this market and identify a subset of transactions meeting certain eligibility criteria: simple, transparent andstandardised securitisations or STS securitisations.
Capital requirements for positions in securitisation, including the more risk-sensitive treatment for STS securitisations, are set out in the present proposal while eligibility criteria for STS securitisations, together with other cross-sectoral provisions, are contained in the Securitisation Regulation.
To ensure a consistent interpretation and common understanding of the STS requirements by competent authorities, EBA, ESMA and EIOPA should coordinate the work of competent authorities across financial sectors andassess practical issues which may arise with regards to STS securitisations.
In addition to the re-calibration of the 3 approaches,senior positions in STS securitisations will also benefit from a lower floor of 10% instead of 15% which will remain applicable to both non-senior positions in STS securitisations and to non-STS securitisations generally.
In the light of this objective the three ESAs should, in the framework of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, coordinate their work and that of the competent authorities to ensure cross-sectoral consistency andassess practical issues which may arise with regards to STS securitisations.
For the purposes of calculating risk-weighted exposure amounts, eligible STS securitisations, as defined in accordance with the Securitisation Regulation, shall fulfil additional requirements related to the underlying exposures, namely credit granting standards, minimum granularity and maximum Risk Weights(RWs) under the SA approach.
The current securitisation framework in the CRR is essentially based on the standards developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision("BCBS") more than a decade ago andthese do not make any distinction between STS securitisations and other more complex and opaque transactions.
As pointed out by the European Banking Authority(the"EBA") in its"Report on Qualifying Securitisations" of June 201510, empirical evidence on defaults andlosses shows that STS securitisations exhibited better performance than other securitisations during the financial crisis, reflecting the use of simple and transparent structures and robust execution practices in STS securitisation which deliver lower credit, operational and agency risks.