Related provisions for SUP App 3.3.7
1 - 20 of 36 items.
When the competent authorities of a third country which apply supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the EEA assign a risk weight which is lower than that indicated in BIPRU 3.4.1 R to BIPRU 3.4.3 R to exposures to their central government and central bank denominated and funded in the domestic currency, a firm may risk weight such exposures in the same manner.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 1 point 5]
A firm must treat an exposure to a regional government or local authority of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom as an exposure to the central government in whose jurisdiction that regional government or local authority is established if that regional government or local authority is included on the list of regional governments and local authorities drawn up by the competent authority in that EEA State under a CRD implementation measure with respect to point 9 of Part 1
When competent authorities of a third country jurisdiction which apply supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the EEA treat exposures to regional governments and local authorities as exposures to their central government, a firm may risk weightexposures to such regional governments and local authorities in the same manner.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 1 point 11]
Where a competent authority of another EEA State implements points 14 or 15 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive by exercising the discretion to treat exposures to public sector entities as exposures to institutions or as exposures to the central government of the EEA State concerned, a firm may risk weightexposures to the relevant public sector entities in the same manner.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 1 point 16]
When competent authorities of a third country jurisdiction, which apply supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the EEA, treat exposures to public sector entities as exposures to institutions, a firm may risk weightexposures to the relevant public sector entities in the same manner.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 1 point 17]
(1) Where a competent authority of another EEA State implements point 37 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive by exercising the discretion to allow the treatment in that point, a firm may assign to the relevant national currency exposures the risk weight permitted by that CRD implementation measure.(2) When the competent authority of a third country which applies supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the EEA assigns
Where an exposure to an institution is in the form of minimum reserves required by the European Central Bank or by the central bank of an EEA State to be held by the firm, a firm may assign the risk weight that would be assigned to exposures to the central bank of the EEA State in question provided:(1) the reserves are held in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1745/2003 of the European Central Bank of 12 September 2003 or a subsequent replacement regulation or in accordance
If a CRD implementation measure of another EEA State exercises the discretion in point 49 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive to dispense with the condition corresponding to BIPRU 3.4.60 R (3) (The risk of the borrower should not materially depend upon the performance of the underlying property or project) , a firm may apply a risk weight of 35% to such exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on residential property situated in that EEA State.[Note:
The property must be valued by an independent valuer at or less than the market value. In those EEA States that have laid down rigorous criteria for the assessment of the mortgage lending value in statutory or regulatory provisions the property may instead be valued by an independent valuer at or less than the mortgage lending value.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 62]
A firm may only treat an exposure as fully and completely secured by residential property situated in another EEA State for the purposes of BIPRU 3.4.56 R or BIPRU 3.4.58 R if it would be treated as fully and completely secured by the relevant CRD implementation measures in that EEA State implementing points 45 and 47 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive.
If a CRD implementation measure in another EEA State implements the discretion in point 51 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive, a firm may apply the same treatment as that CRD implementation measure to exposures falling within the scope of that CRD implementation measure which are fully and completely secured by mortgages on offices or other commercial premises situated in that EEA State.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 1 points 51 and 57]
If a CRD implementation measure in another EEA State implements the discretion in point 53 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive, a firm may apply the same treatment as that CRD implementation measure to exposures related to property leasing transactions concerning offices or other commercial premises situated in that EEA State and governed by statutory provisions whereby the lessor retains full ownership of the rented assets until the tenant exercises his
(1) If a CRD implementation measure in another EEA State implements the discretion in point 58 of Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive to dispense with the condition in point 54(b) for exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on commercial property situated in that EEA State, a firm may apply the same treatment as that CRD implementation measure to exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on commercial property situated in that EEA State
(1) Covered bonds means covered bonds as defined in paragraph (1) of the definition in the glossary (Definition based on Article 22(4) of the UCITS Directive) and collateralised by any of the following eligible assets:(a) exposures to or guaranteed by central governments, central bank, public sector entities, regional governments and local authorities in the EEA;(b) (i) exposures to or guaranteed by non-EEA central governments, non-EEAcentral banks, multilateral development banks,
Where BIPRU 3.4.116 R does not apply, a firm may determine the risk weight for a CIU as set out in BIPRU 3.4.123 R to BIPRU 3.4.125 R, if the following eligibility criteria are met:(1) one of the following conditions is satisfied:(a) the CIU is managed by a company which is subject to supervision in an EEA State; or(b) the following conditions are satisfied:(i) the CIU is managed by a company which is subject to supervision that is equivalent to that laid down in EU5 law; and5(ii)
(1) The condition in BIPRU 4.10.6 R (3) does not apply for exposures secured by residential real estate property situated within the territory of another EEA State.(2) However (1) only applies if and to the extent that the CRD implementation measures for that EEA State in relation to the IRB approach implement the option set out in paragraph 16 of Part 1 of Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive (waiver for residential real estate property) with respect to residential
(1) The condition in BIPRU 4.10.6 R (3) does not apply for commercial real estate property situated within the territory of another EEA State.(2) However (1) only applies if and to the extent that the CRD implementation measures for that EEA State in relation to the IRB approach implement the option set out in paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive (waiver for commercial real estate property) with respect to commercial real estate property
(1) A firm may apply the treatment in paragraph 74 of Part 3 of Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive (50% risk weight for exposures secured by real estate) in respect of exposures collateralised by:(a) residential real estate property; or(b) commercial real estate property;located in the territory of another EEA State.(2) However (1)(a) or (1)(b) only applies if the CRD implementing measures for that EEA State with respect to the IRB approach have implemented the
(1) This rule, in accordance with BIPRU 4.3.57 R (4) (Definition of default), sets the exact number of days past due that a firm should abide by in the case of exposures to PSEs.(2) For counterparts that are PSEs situated within the United Kingdom the number of days past due is 180.(3) For counterparts that are PSEs situated in another EEA State the number of days past due is the lower of:(a) 180; and(b) the number of days past due fixed under the CRD implementation measure with
If under the CRD implementation measure for a particular EEA State with respect to point 58 of Part 3 of Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive (Conditions for applying the 0% volatility adjustment) the treatment set out in that point is permitted to be applied in the case of repurchase transactions or securities lending or borrowing transactions in securities issued by the domestic government of that EEA State, then a firm may adopt the same approach to the same transactions.[Note:BCD
(1) This rule, in accordance with BIPRU 4.3.57 R (4) (Definition of default), sets the exact number of days past due that a firm must abide by in the case of retail exposures.(2) For retail exposures to counterparts situated within the United Kingdom the number of days past due is 180 days with the exception of retail SME exposures. For these exposures the number is 90 days.(3) For retail exposures to counterparts situated in another EEA State the number of days past due is the
In the case of guarantees provided in the context of mutual guarantee schemes recognised for these purposes by another EEA competent authority under a CRD implementation measure with respect to point 19 of Part 2 of Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive or provided by or counter-guaranteed by entities referred to in BIPRU 5.7.9 R, the requirements in BIPRU 5.7.11 R (1) – (3) will be satisfied where either of the following conditions are met:(1) the lending firm has
The E-Commerce Directive does not affect the responsibilities of Home State under the Single Market Directives. This includes the obligation of a Home State regulator to notify the Host State regulator of a firm's intention to establish a branch in, or provide cross border services into, the other EEA State.
1The Single Market Directives require credit institutions, insurance undertakings (other than reinsurance undertakings)5, MiFID investment firms3, UCITS management companies and insurance intermediaries to make a notification to the Home State before establishing a branch or providing cross border services.SUP 13.5 (Notices of intention) sets out the notification requirements for a firm seeking to establish a branch or provide cross border services. As firms will note, the decision
A firmcontrolled by an EEA parent financial holding company or an EEA parent mixed financial holding company1 must comply with the obligations laid down in BIPRU 11.3 on the basis of the consolidated financial situation of that EEA parent financial holding company or EEA parent mixed financial holding company1.[Note: BCD Article 72(2)]
A firm which is included within comparable disclosures provided on a consolidated basis by a parent undertaking whose head office is not in an EEA State may apply for a waiver from the relevant disclosure requirements in BIPRU 11.2.2 R - BIPRU 11.2.5 R. The appropriate regulator's approach to granting waivers is set out in the Supervision manual (see SUP 8).[Note: BCD Article 72(3)]
Where an EEA parent institution3 and its subsidiary undertakings or an EEA parent financial holding company3 and its subsidiary undertakings or an EEA parent mixed financial holding company and its subsidiary undertakings6 use the IRB approach on a unified basis, the question whether the minimum IRB standards are met is answered by considering the parent undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings together,6 unless the firm'sIRB permission specifies otherwise.[Note: BCD Article
(1) This guidance sets out the basis on which a firm may rely upon a rating system or data provided by another member of its group.(2) A firm may rely upon a rating system or data provided by another member of its group if the following conditions are satisfied:(a) the firm only does so to the extent that it is appropriate, given the nature and scale of the firm's business and portfolios and the firm's position within the group;(b) the group is an EEA banking and investment group;(c)
(1) To the extent that its IRB permission permits this, a firm permitted to use the IRB approach in the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts3 for one or more IRB exposure classes may apply the standardised approach in accordance with this rule.3(2) A firm may apply the standardised approach to the IRB exposure class referred to in BIPRU 4.3.2 R (1) (Sovereigns) where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome
In the opinion of the European Commission (and in the wording of the Single Market Directives) "only activities carried on within the territory of another Member State should be the subject of prior notification" (Commission interpretative communication: Freedom to provide services and the interests of the general good in the Second Banking Directive (97/C 209/04)). In determining, for the purposes of notification, whether a service is to be provided 'within' another EEA State,
Where, however, a credit institution or MiFID investment firm:22(1) intends to send a member of staff or a temporarily authorised intermediary to the territory of another EEA State on a temporary basis to provide financial services; or(2) provides advice, of the type that requires notification under either MiFID or the Banking Consolidation Directive2, to customers in another EEA State;2 the firm should make a prior notification under the freedom to provide services.
The key distinction in relation to temporary activities is whether a firm should make its notification under the freedom of establishment in a Host State, or whether it should notify under the freedom to provide services into a Host State. It would be inappropriate to discuss such a complex issue in guidance of this nature. It is recommended that, where a firm is unclear on the distinction, it should seek appropriate advice. In either case, where a firm is carrying on activities
The FCA and PRA consider6 that, in order to comply with Principle 3:Management and control (see PRIN 2.1.1 R), a firm should have appropriate procedures to monitor the nature of the services provided to its customers. Where a UK firm has non-resident customers but has not notified the EEA State in which the customers are resident that it wishes to exercise its freedom to provide services, the FCA and PRA6 would expect the firm's systems to include appropriate controls. Such controls
When an advanced measurement approach is intended to be used by an EEA parent institution and its subsidiary undertakings or the subsidiary undertakings of an EEAparent financial holding company, the application of a firm in accordance with BIPRU 1.3.14 D must include the elements listed in BIPRU 6.5.5 R (Minimum standards for the advanced measurement approach).[Note:BCD Article 105(2)]
When an advanced measurement approach is intended to be used by an EEA parent institution and its subsidiary undertakings or the subsidiary undertakings of an EEA parent financial holding company or an EEA parent mixed financial holding company4, the application of a firm must include a description of the methodology used for allocating operational risk capital between the different entities of the group.[Note:BCD Annex4X Part 3 point 30]4
This chapter applies to a UK firm, that is, a person whose head office is in the United Kingdom and which is entitled to carry on an activity in another EEA State subject to the conditions of a Single Market Directive. Such an entitlement is referred to in the Act as an EEA right and its exercise is referred to in the Handbook as passporting.1
This chapter also applies to a UK firm which wishes to establish a branch in, or provide cross border services into, Gibraltar. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gibraltar) Order 2001 provides that a UK firm is to be treated as having an entitlement corresponding to its EEA right, to establish a branch in, or provide cross border services into, Gibraltar under any of the Single Market Directives. So, references in this chapter to an EEA State or an EEA right include
Simplified summary of the territorial scope of the regulated mortgage activities, to be read in conjunction with the rest of this section.
This table belongs to PERG 4.11.8 G
Individual borrower resident and located: |
|||
in the UK |
outside the UK |
||
Service provider carrying on regulated activity from establishment: |
in the UK |
Yes |
Yes |
outside the UK |
Yes |
No |
|
Yes = authorisation or exemption required No = authorisation or exemption not required |
|||
A UK firm should be aware that the guidance is the FSA's interpretation of the Single Market Directives, the Act and the legislation made under the Act. The guidance is not exhaustive and is not a substitute for firms consulting the legislation or taking their own legal advice in the United Kingdom and in the relevant EEA States.
(1) 1This chapter applies to an EEA firm that wishes to exercise an entitlement to establish a branch in, or provide cross border services into, the United Kingdom under a Single Market Directive or the auction regulation7. (The Act refers to such an entitlement as an EEA right and its exercise is referred to in the Handbook as "passporting".) (See SUP App 3 (Guidance on passporting issues) for further guidance on passporting.)(2) This chapter also applies to:(a) a Treaty firm
(1) EEA firms should note that this chapter only addresses the procedures which the appropriate UK regulator16 will follow under the Act.So, an EEA firm should consider this guidance in conjunction with the requirements with which it will have to comply in its Home State. 166(2) The guidance in this chapter represents the appropriate UK regulator's16 interpretation of the Single Market Directives, the auction regulation,7 the Act and the secondary legislation made under the Act.
In relation to a firm, intra-group exposures that are exempt under a non-core large exposures group waiver may be excluded when calculating the limits in BIPRU 10.5 (Limits on exposures) that apply to the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group, provided that the total amount of such exposures and the other exposures which are exempt under a non-core large exposures group waiver do not exceed the limit in BIPRU 10.9A.7 R (Non-trading book backstop large exposure limit for
A firm which is a significant subsidiary of:(1) an EEA parent institution; or(2) an EEA parent financial holding company;1 or2(3) an EEA parent mixed financial holding company;2must disclose the information specified in BIPRU 11.5.3 R to BIPRU 11.5.4 R on an individual or sub-consolidated basis.[Note: BCD Annex XII Part 1 point 5]
1This chapter applies to an incoming EEA firm other than an EEA pure reinsurer7 which has established a branch in, or is providing cross border services into, the United Kingdom under one of the Single Market Directives or the auction regulation8 and, therefore, qualifies for authorisation under Schedule 3 to the Act.
Section 418 of the Act extends the meaning that 'carry on regulated activity in the United Kingdom' would normally have by setting out additional cases in which a person who would not otherwise be regarded as carrying on the activity in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as doing so. Each of the following cases thus amounts to carrying on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom:(1) where a UK-based person carries on a regulated activity in another EEA State in the exercise