UCITS V: Studie der Kommission zur Verwahrung und Haftung

Heute wurde ein Dokument der Europäischen Kommission veröffentlicht, das die Auswirkungen der geplanten Änderungen bezüglich der Aufgaben und Pflichten von OGAW-Verwahrstellen untersucht. Interessant an dieser Erhebung sind zum einen Statistiken über die Verteilung von Lagerstellenangeboten in den jeweiligen Märkten, Kosten in Abhängigkeit der Lagerstellenländer und Asset-Strukturen. Zum anderen finden sich auch Aussagen über die Auswirkungen einer umfänglichen Verwahrhaftung der OGAW-Lagerstelle. Im Gegensatz zur aktuellen Regelung für AIF-Vermögensgegenstände sollen nach UCITS V die Verwahrstellen, mit Ausnahme sog. externer Ereignisse, für alle Fälle des Abhandenkommens von verwahrten (oder unter-verwahrten) Finanzinstrumenten haften. In welcher Form diese Risiken durch die Kreditinstitute zu besichern sind, ist wie folgt beschrieben (und wird letztendlich als Argument für die Option der vollumfänglichen Haftung herangezogen):

„Seventh, the Commission services own analysis does not support the view that the instruments held in custody would count as credit exposure under the CRD. Instruments held in custody, regardless whether the custody was delegated or not, are not included in the calculating credit exposure. Similarly, potential losses are not considered within the scope of the credit risk exposure and therefore no capital charge for credit risk is applied. Consequently, no effect on capital charge for credit risk can be expected.

 <Fussnote: Following the CRD, credit institutions need to hold capital against their operational risk arising from the provision of safekeeping services. For the calculation of the capital requirement, they can either use the Basic Indicator, Standardise or Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA). Under the first two approaches, the capital requirement is calculated on the basis of the relevant indicator, which is calculated gross of any provisions and other expenses (e.g. expenses related to lost instruments). Thus, the indicator and the capital requirement will not be affected by the higher liability regime. For example, both credit institutions and investment firms would, under the CRD, need to calculate capital requirements for custody at 15% of interest and on-interest income. As income related to the custody service is very low, 15% of the net earnings does not seem to be a disproportionate charge.>

This analysis is also supported by a consultation that was specifically conducted by ESMA with the European Banking Authority

<Fussnote: According to the EBA, it can be expected that the number of high impact/low frequency losses, which drive the capital charge, will not be affected significantly compared to the already existing legal liabilities. In addition, the capital charge for operational risk is relatively low (on average less of 10% of the total capital requirement); thus no major effects on the capital charge can be expected>.

 Therefore, the preferred option is the Option 4.”

Option 4 bezieht sich auf mögliche Regelungen zur Verwahrhaftung und ist wie folgt definiert: Options Liability

Das gesamte Dokument finden Sie hier:  Impact Assessment UCITS V