|Date||Title / Description||Documents|
September 13, 2016
ISDA response to US Agencies’ NSFR proposal
On August 5, ISDA responded to the US agencies proposed rule that would implement a stable funding requirement, the net stable funding ratio (NSFR), for large and internationally active banking organizations.
July 7, 2016
ISDA/GFMA/IIF/JFMC/TCH submit joint response on leverage ratio
On July 6, 2016, ISDA, the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA), the Institute of International Finance (IIF), Japan Financial Markets Council (JFMC) and The Clearing House (TCH) submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on its consultation on revisions to the Basel III leverage ratio framework.
July 7, 2016
ISDA/AFME responds to the EBA consultation on the draft RTS on proxy spread for CVA risk
On July 6, ISDA, along with the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), responded to the European Banking Authority’s consultation on draft regulatory technical standards for determining proxy spread for credit valuation adjustment under Article 383(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation).
June 30, 2016
ISDA/AFME response to the EC consultation on market risk
On June 24, ISDA, along with the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), responded to the European Commission’s consultation on proportionality in the future market risk capital requirements and the review of the original exposure method.
June 30, 2016
ISDA/AFME/IIF response to the EC consultation on the NSFR
On June 24, ISDA, along with the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the Institute of International Finance (IIF), responded to the European Commission’s consultation on further considerations for the implementation of the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) in Europe.
June 22, 2016
ISDA, GFMA, IACPM and JFMC respond to the Basel consultation on internal risk models
ISDA, along with the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA), the International Association of Credit Portfolio Managers (IACPM) and the Japan Financial Markets Council (JFMC), have responded to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s consultation on reducing variation in credit risk-weighted assets – constraints on the use of internal model approaches.
June 10, 2016
Industry comments on the second phase of revised Pillar 3 consultation
On June 10, ISDA, along with the Institute of International Finance (IIF) and the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA), responded to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision consultation on the second phase of the revised Pillar 3 disclosure requirements. Although the industry strongly endorses the better understanding of banks’ capital and risk profiles, the response highlights concern about the quantity, highly technical character, and granularity of information required, which seem likely to contribute to information overload.
June 3, 2016
Industry associations respond to notice of proposed rule-making on single counterparty credit limits
On June 3, 2016, ISDA, The Clearing House Association, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association jointly responded to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s notice of proposed rule-making implementing single counterparty credit limits for domestic and foreign bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.
May 24, 2016
ISDA and TCH publish considerations for CCP resolution
ISDA and The Clearing House (TCH) have published a new paper on central counterparty (CCP) resolution. The paper identifies a number of potentially significant resolution tools or approaches that require further evaluation by the official sector and the industry.
April 18, 2016
ISDA/GFMA/IIF publish industry FRTB QIS analysis
On April 18, ISDA, GFMA and IIF published key findings from an updated quantitative impact study (QIS) based on the final Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) rules. The industry analysis, based on data from 21 banks, shows the new rules will result in market risk capital increasing between 1.5 and 2.4 times compared with current levels, depending on internal model approval for bank trading desks.