EU regulators clash over structured products risk ratings
Dealers say the latest delay in Europe’s implementation of the Priips framework is down to a regulatory spat over whether quantitative or qualitative methodologies should be used to produce the risk indicator that must be included in a product’s key information document
A key discussion paper on European reform of the structured products market is being delayed due to squabbles among national regulators over how product risk indicators should be defined, according to market participants.
A discussion paper on the key information document (KID) – part of the forthcoming Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Priips) framework – was due to be published by the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) earlier this year. The European Securities and
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Bank of Communications moves early to meet TLAC requirements
China Construction Bank becomes last China G-Sib to release TLAC plans
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites