After all, the new securitisation regulation has been available in its final form for more than 2 years and has been applicable for 5 months now. Unfortunately, some essential implementation issues are still unresolved. Is it due to the complexity of the issue, the coordination process of the institutions involved? Or has the issue of Brexit required appropriate prioritisation by the supervisory authorities over a longer period of time? Originators and banks use various alternatives for the securitisation of trade receivables, car loans and leasing receivables as well as commercial leasing portfolios. In addition to the classic ABCP conduit structure, transactions are also financed directly via the bank balance sheet. The new securitisation regulation supports this approach through the new SEC-SA approach. Since syndication with different financing banks is the rule for larger transactions, it will be more common in practice for different banks to finance a corporate customer or a leasing company using different approaches.
Important questions regarding the implementation of disclosure remain unanswered
The mapping of transaction reporting on the basis of ESMA RTS "Disclosure" is unfortunately still unclear. A joint position paper of the German and French banking industry dated 16 May 2019 addresses this issue and underlines its relevance (based on a list of over 40 large syndicated transactions, which is not published for data protection reasons).
Unfortunately, this problem, which was addressed in detail to ESMA in January 2019, has not yet been solved in the recently published ESMA Q&A: