EU Securitisation Framework Review: Deal Agreed, Rules Not Yet Live

On 21 October 2026, negotiators for the European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement on the EU securitisation framework review: the package the Commission tabled on 17 June 2025 to amend the Securitisation Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, and the securitisation chapter of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. In a news item dated 22 October, the Commission said it had welcomed the deal the previous day and described it as the first legislative deliverable under the Savings and Investments Union.

For originators, institutional investors and the teams that file COREP and Securitisation Regulation disclosures, the agreement fixes a direction and changes no filing yet. The compromise text has not been published, both co-legislators still have to adopt it formally, and most of the reporting changes the package points to depend on technical standards that have not been drafted. What the deal does settle is the shape of the change: lower and more risk-sensitive capital for senior and “resilient” positions, lighter investor due diligence, a proposed legal split between public and private securitisations, and EU-level supervision of the firms that verify STS compliance.

Until publication, a workable rule is to treat every number in the June 2025 proposals and in the Council’s December 2025 negotiating mandates as a candidate, and to keep filing on today’s templates.

Related reading: COREP Reporting Explained

Where the EU securitisation framework review stands after 21 October

The file has moved in four steps so far; formal adoption by both co-legislators and publication in the Official Journal come next.

• 17 June 2025: the Commission adopts COM(2025) 826 (amending the Securitisation Regulation) and COM(2025) 825 (amending the CRR on securitisation exposures). Changes to the Liquidity Coverage Ratio Delegated Regulation, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, run separately as a Commission delegated act.
• 12 December 2025: the Council’s General Secretariat circulates the negotiating texts for both the Securitisation Regulation (ST 16740/25) and the CRR securitisation amendments (ST 16741/25). On 19 December 2025, the Council agrees its negotiating position on the package. The two mandates show where the Council’s position departs from the Commission’s June 2025 text, which matters because the October compromise text is not yet public.
• 21 October 2026: Parliament and Council reach the provisional political agreement.
• 22 October 2026: the Commission publishes a news item stating that it welcomed the deal the previous day. According to the Commission, the text now awaits technical finalisation and formal approval by both co-legislators, followed by publication in the Official Journal. The Commission also notes that the European Council reaffirmed in October 2026 the importance of finalising the package by the end of this year.

The adopted Official Journal text must be used to establish entry into force. The Commission’s June 2025 Securitisation Regulation proposal and the Council’s December mandate for that regulation provide for entry into force on the twentieth day following publication, while the Council’s CRR mandate retains a placeholder for the corresponding period. The Commission’s 22 October 2026 news item says the amendments will enter into force immediately once adopted and published in the Official Journal, which differs from the twentieth-day formula in the proposal and the Council’s Securitisation Regulation mandate. The final legal provision will determine the applicable date.

Entry into force and the first filing under new templates are separate dates. The proposed disclosure framework requires further regulatory and implementing technical standards before the replacement templates can apply. Entry into force of the Level 1 amendments and application of the new disclosure templates must therefore be tracked separately. The final provisions and adopted technical standards will determine the precise reporting transition.

Bank capital: lower floors for senior and resilient positions

The Council’s 21 October press release says bank capital requirements are recalibrated on a risk-sensitive basis, with materially lower requirements for low-risk securitisations, introduces a new “resilient” category and maintains higher requirements for riskier securitisation positions. A law-firm summary reports that the Parliament’s proposed 5% minimum risk weight for safer asset classes forms part of the final text. Neither the Commission’s 22 October news item nor the Council’s December mandates state that figure, so it stays unconfirmed until the compromise text is published.

The mechanics sit in the CRR proposal and the Council mandate. Today, senior positions face flat floors: under the securitisation standardised approach (SEC-SA), for example, Article 262 CRR sets a 10% floor for senior positions in STS securitisations, against 15% for non-STS senior positions. The Council mandate’s recitals describe replacing these flat floors for senior positions with a formula that reflects the riskiness of each underlying pool and the STS or non-STS status of the deal, with a minimum threshold to stop the floor falling too far. In the Council text, the formula floor is the higher of a fixed minimum and a percentage of the pool’s own risk weight, so where the formula applies, a riskier pool carries a higher floor.

How the reported 5% value slots into that design is not yet public. The Council mandate shows one possible shape: alongside the formula, it set a flat 6% risk weight under the external ratings-based approach for senior tranches of STS securitisations of auto or equipment loans and leases and ABCP trade receivables at credit quality step 1 for any tranche maturity, or credit quality step 2 for a one-year tranche maturity. The reported 5% figure is tied to safer asset classes, and the final text will show whether it works as a formula minimum, a flat value for named asset classes, or both.

The p-factor, the multiplier that sets how much capital a securitisation attracts relative to the unsecuritised pool, moves too. The Council mandate’s recitals describe lowering it under the internal ratings-based approach (SEC-IRBA) for senior positions held mainly by originators and sponsors, and under SEC-SA for senior positions, while leaving it unchanged for non-senior positions and for investors in non-STS securitisations. The external ratings-based look-up tables (SEC-ERBA) are recalibrated to match.

Resilience is tested at origination. In the Council mandate, one of the conditions for a resilient senior position is that, at the origination date, the attachment point of the senior tranche is at least 1.5 times K_A (the capital charge of the pool under the standardised approach) for SEC-SA and SEC-ERBA users, or at least 1.1 times the sum of the pool’s expected loss multiplied by its weighted average life and its unexpected loss for SEC-IRBA users, with the weighted average life capped at five years. The same text calculates K_A for the floor “for the pool of the underlying exposures at the origination of securitisation”. A bank whose reporting warehouse recalculates K_A at each reference date without keeping the origination-date value would have to source that figure from deal files.

The Council mandate’s review clause also asks the Commission to keep monitoring the output-floor transitional for securitisation exposures in Article 465(13) CRR, which our CRR3 output floor phase-in note covers from the reporting side.

Significant risk transfer: one principle-based test and a self-assessment

Under Articles 244 and 245 CRR, the applicable prudential treatment of traditional and synthetic securitisations is available subject to the relevant effective-risk-transfer conditions and either recognition of significant credit risk transferred to third parties or the application of a 1,250% risk weight to all retained securitisation positions, or their deduction from CET1. The Council mandate retains this alternative route alongside its proposed new SRT test. Those articles currently rely on mechanical tests plus a permission route. The CRR proposal, as carried in the Council mandate, replaces them with a principle-based test and removes the permission route, which the mandate’s recitals describe as having seen very limited use.

The test in the Council text works on unexpected losses. After the lifetime expected loss of the pool is allocated to the tranches, SRT is achieved where the positions transferred to third parties carry at least 50% of the unexpected losses allocated to all tranches. Competent authorities may, in individual cases, require a larger share or object to the transfer, for example where governance failings, special or complex structural features or disproportionate capital relief are present. The conditions must hold at origination over the lifetime of the transaction in base-case and stress-case conditions, and the originator submits a self-assessment to its competent authority. The Council’s recitals add that the self-assessment should include a cash-flow model analysis.

A fast-track process is foreseen for transactions without problematic features, and the EBA would specify the calculations, the structural features, the minimum content of the self-assessment and its scenarios in regulatory technical standards, due 18 months after entry into force in the mandate’s bracketed text.

One detail matters for data owners. Under the Council mandate, proposed Article 244(8) requires competent authorities to notify the EBA by 31 March of traditional securitisations assessed under the relevant provisions in the preceding year. Proposed Article 245(7) applies the annual notification to synthetic securitisations for which a self-assessment was received in the preceding year. The prescribed information includes tranche thickness and amounts, portfolio loss measures, weighted average life, tranche risk weights and relevant supervisory interventions. My reading is that the originator’s self-assessment inputs are the natural source for that notification, so the calculation file and what the supervisor sends to the EBA should reconcile.

The SRT structure above comes from the Commission proposal and the Council mandate, and the 21-22 October statements do not describe it. Whether the final text keeps the 50% threshold, the self-assessment and the annual notification as drafted is open until publication. For the Basel context on synthetic transfers, see our note on synthetic risk transfers and capital relief.

Investor due diligence: what the proposal removes and what it keeps

Article 5 of the Securitisation Regulation sets the due diligence duties of institutional investors, and the Commission proposed streamlining them to reduce unnecessary costs for investors. In COM(2025) 826, investors would no longer verify the sell-side obligations of originators, sponsors and SSPEs established in the Union, on the reasoning that those entities are already supervised and can be sanctioned in the EU. Point (c) of Article 5(1) is deleted, and the checks on Article 7 disclosures and on non-performing exposure standards in Article 5(1)(e) and (f) are limited to sell-side entities established in a third country.

The Commission proposed deleting the separate STS-compliance verification requirement in Article 5(3)(c). The Council’s December mandate instead retains that requirement, but disapplies it where an authorised and supervised Article 28 third-party verifier has positively assessed the transaction’s STS compliance. Both approaches simplify aspects of the investor risk assessment, but the final extent of the STS verification duty remains unresolved.

The detailed list of structural features and monitoring metrics gives way to a principles-based assessment proportionate to the risk of the position.

Three further changes in the proposal have operational consequences:

• For secondary market purchases, a new Article 5(4)(g) allows the due diligence assessment and verifications to be documented within a reasonable period after the investment, capped at 15 calendar days.
• The Commission proposed an Article 5(4a) exemption for eligible positions guaranteed by multilateral development banks and a separate Article 5(4b) partial exemption for transactions with a qualifying 15% first-loss tranche held or guaranteed by the Union or a national promotional bank. The Council’s December mandate retains Article 5(4a) but omits the proposed Article 5(4b) due-diligence exemption. It separately proposes changes to Article 6 risk retention for certain publicly supported transactions, subject to additional conditions. The Article 5 first-loss exemption must therefore not be assumed to survive.
• On delegation, the Commission proposed retaining liability with the delegating institutional investor. The Council’s December mandate instead provides that relevant sanctions are imposed on the delegated managing party rather than the delegating investor, and requires the delegating investor to establish that the managing party has prior experience conducting due diligence. The final allocation of responsibilities and sanctions must be confirmed from the adopted Article 5(5).

The Commission proposed adding a failure by institutional investors to meet Article 5 to the administrative-sanctions provisions of Article 32. The Council’s December 2025 negotiating position removed that proposed amendment. Whether a new Article 32 sanctions route survives in the final text remains unresolved. Separately, institutions must continue to comply with the existing prudential consequences of material failures to meet the Securitisation Regulation’s due-diligence requirements. Those consequences are governed by the CRR provisions currently in force, independently of the proposed Article 32 amendments.

The deleted verification duties are easy to over-read. The pre-investment risk assessment in Article 5(3) and the ongoing monitoring duties in Article 5(4) remain in the proposal, and the third-country verification limbs stay in place. Switching off all checks on a third-country CLO on the strength of the deleted verification duties would misread the amended text. The institutions’ statements confirm only that administrative burden falls compared with current rules; the final delegation wording and the sanction route are the two points to read line by line.

Transparency: the public and private split and the template rebuild

The Commission’s June 2025 proposal defines a public securitisation using three alternative triggers: a required prospectus, admission of securitisation notes to an EU trading venue, or marketing on non-negotiable terms. The Council’s December 2025 mandate, ST 16740/25, instead defines a public securitisation solely by whether a prospectus must be drawn up under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. Transactions not meeting that criterion would be private under the Council text. The final definition agreed by the co-legislators has not yet been published, so neither classification model should be treated as the final build specification.

The Commission proposal and the Council mandate both envisage public and private securitisation categories and differentiated transparency arrangements, but they disagree on the public classification test. The Commission’s 22 October news item does not state the final classification wording. A law-firm summary of the institutions’ statements reports a distinct CLO reporting template, which neither the Commission proposal nor the Council mandates contain, so that point stays open until the compromise text is published.

The split changes who reports to a repository. Today, the second subparagraph of Article 7(2) sends disclosures to a securitisation repository, and the third subparagraph exempts securitisations for which no prospectus has to be drawn up. The proposal brings private securitisations into repository reporting under a dedicated, simplified template designed for supervisors, aligned as closely as possible with the ECB’s guide on the notification of securitisation transactions, and kept out of public view. Repository access for investors and potential investors is limited to public securitisations in the proposed Article 17(1).

The public template is set for a rebuild. The current disclosure templates sit in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1224 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1225. The proposal’s recitals target a reduction of at least 35% in mandatory data fields and say that converting certain mandatory fields into voluntary ones could add flexibility; the amended Article 7(1) lets ABCP and securitisations of highly granular pools of short-term exposures make the underlying-exposure information in points (a), (c)(ii) and (e)(i) available in aggregate form to holders and, on request, to potential investors. In the proposal, drafting sits with the ESAs acting through the Joint Committee under EBA leadership, in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA. They get 6 months after entry into force to submit draft standards, which then enter into force 12 months after Commission adoption; both figures are in square brackets in the proposal and may change.

ESMA published its report on simplification and burden reduction, ESMA22-1669215091-6873, on 28 September 2026. Paragraph 74 of the report says ESMA provided a proposal for a proportionate disclosure template for all private securitisations in 2025 and considers it appropriate to defer any amendments to the disclosure technical standards until the main Level 1 concepts have been sufficiently clarified. The timing and content of replacement templates therefore depend on the final Level 1 legislation and subsequent technical standards. ESMA’s parallel burden-reduction work on transaction reporting is covered in our note on ESMA transaction reporting simplification. My reading of the proposal’s design is that the 2020 templates continue to govern public deals until the replacement standards apply, and that private deals start repository reporting only from the date those standards set.

On the prudential side, the COREP detail template C 14.00 (SEC DETAILS) has asked institutions to flag each securitisation as private, intra-group or public (column 0021 in the instructions published with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451, since replaced by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117). That flag has had no Level 1 definition behind it. On my reading, an institution whose C 14.00 flag follows its own placement conventions would need to reassess it against the final Article 2(32) definition once applicable, recognising that the Commission proposed three alternative triggers while the Council mandate retained only the prospectus trigger. Any change to the COREP templates themselves would come through the EBA’s reporting framework releases, as it did for the 2017 reform: the EBA’s framework overview lists “Changes to COREP to align with new securitisation framework” in framework release 2.9, released from December 2018 and applicable for reports module by module from December 2019. Our note on the EBA reporting framework 4.4 package shows how such releases are sequenced.

STS changes, insurers as protection sellers and verifier supervision

According to the institutions’ statements, the STS label gets targeted changes to support cross-border market integration, to let insurers and reinsurers take part in synthetic securitisation and to make it easier to securitise project finance before projects become operational. The Council’s October statement confirms targeted STS amendments and higher UCITS investment limits, but does not establish the detailed comply-or-explain, annual-reporting or non-compliance-notification mechanisms described in secondary summaries. The December Council mandate contains provisions on supervisory convergence, Joint Committee coordination and supervisory information exchange; their final form cannot yet be established from the published political-agreement statement.

The Commission proposal supplies the detail behind several of these points. The Commission proposed that pools with at least 70% SME exposures at origination be deemed homogeneous under Articles 20(8), 24(15) and 26b(8). The Council’s December mandate retains the 70% threshold but introduces cumulative conditions: all exposures must be to obligors established in Member States, and the exposures must follow similar approaches to credit-risk assessment, servicing, monitoring and collection. The final STS homogeneity test remains subject to confirmation.

The Commission’s proposed Article 26e(8)(aa) allows qualifying unfunded guarantees from insurers and reinsurers, subject to an approved internal model, solvency requirements, credit quality step 3 or better, diversification conditions and a EUR 20 billion size test. The Commission text itself differs between its recital and operative provision on the size measure. The Council’s December mandate substantially revises these conditions. It requires credit quality step 2 or better when protection is first recognised and step 3 or better currently; introduces a 40% non-life technical-provisions diversification test; and provides a EUR 15 billion total-assets threshold for the undertaking or a qualifying parent group, with additional group safeguards. The final eligibility and measurement criteria remain unconfirmed.

Verifier supervision is where the June 2025 text and the deal part company. The Council’s 21 October announcement confirms that STS third-party verifiers will move to EU-level supervision, whereas the Commission proposal and December Council mandate provided for authorisation and supervision by competent authorities. The Council announcement does not name the EU-level supervisor. A law-firm summary of the institutions’ statements names ESMA, so the supervisor’s identity, its precise role and the transition arrangements stay open until the compromise text is published.

Data to map before the Official Journal text arrives

Every current template stays in force for now. The COREP securitisation templates C 13.01, C 14.00 and C 14.01 under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117, the Pillar 3 securitisation disclosures (EU SECA and EU SEC1 to EU SEC5 under Article 15 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3172) and the Securitisation Regulation disclosure templates all stay as they are until amending standards apply. The preparation that pays off now is data mapping.

Two adjacent files run on their own tracks. The LCR changes remain on a separate Commission delegated-act track concerning Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61. The relevant Solvency II amendments have already been enacted through Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/269, which amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35, including its treatment of spread risk on securitisation positions. That act was published on 18 February 2026, entered into force on 10 March 2026 and applies from 30 January 2027. Neither delegated measure forms part of the October 2026 co-legislators’ agreement.

The Commission’s impact assessment, quoted in the explanatory memorandum, put operational costs at 780 million per year for the market as a whole and expected its preferred option to save 310 million per year.

Frequently Asked Questions

Our notes are admitted to trading on an MTF, but we placed them with three investors on negotiated terms. Public or private?

Under the Commission proposal, admission of the securitisation notes to an EU MTF would independently make the transaction public, regardless of negotiated placement terms. Under the Council’s December mandate, the decisive criterion is instead whether a prospectus is required under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. MTF admission alone is not a separate trigger in that mandate. The final classification is unresolved; do not configure venue admission as an automatic override until the adopted definition is available.

We are an EU originator, but the designated reporting entity is a third-country SSPE. Does the verification relief apply?

Under the Commission proposal, Article 5(1)(e) refers to a third-country originator, sponsor or SSPE designated under Article 7(2). The Council’s December mandate removes the designation qualifier and refers instead to an originator, sponsor or SSPE established in a third country. It also requires at least the substantive information listed in Article 7(1), at the relevant frequency, without necessarily requiring EU-standard template formats. An offshore SSPE remains relevant, but the final entity trigger and evidence standard must be checked against the adopted provision.

Can a primary-market investor buy first and document due diligence within 15 days?

The proposed window in Article 5(4)(g) refers to secondary market investments only. For primary purchases, Article 5(3) keeps the requirement to carry out the due diligence assessment before holding the position.

Do the multilateral development bank and public first-loss carve-outs switch off the same duties?

They differ in the Commission proposal. A position fully guaranteed by a multilateral development bank listed in Article 117(2) CRR, under a guarantee meeting Articles 213 and 215 CRR, is relieved of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5. Where the Union or a national promotional bank holds or guarantees a first-loss tranche of at least 15%, only paragraphs 1 and 4 are disapplied, so the Article 5(3) risk assessment still applies. The Council’s December mandate retains the proposed multilateral development bank exemption in Article 5(4a) but omits the Commission’s proposed first-loss exemption in Article 5(4b). Neither exemption can be treated as agreed until the final compromise text confirms which provisions survived negotiations.

Does the agreement change LCR eligibility of securitisations?

The Commission consulted on draft amendments to the LCR Delegated Regulation from 17 June to 15 July 2025 (Have Your Say initiative 14443). Any final delegated act will require a separate check of adoption, scrutiny, entry into force and application dates.

Will the private-securitisation template replace our securitisation notification to the ECB?

The proposal aligns the private template’s content with the ECB’s guide on the notification of securitisation transactions and says future changes to that guide may require the templates to be reviewed. It does not say the repository report replaces the ECB notification, so the working assumption for significant institutions is that both continue until the final text or the ECB says otherwise.

Do the new rules reach securitisations issued before entry into force?

The Commission’s COM(2025) 826 does not contain an express transitional provision for existing securitisations. However, the Council’s December 2025 mandate proposes a new Article 43b under which specified existing traditional and synthetic securitisations may obtain an STS designation if the relevant conditions are satisfied. Certain conditions are assessed at original issuance or creation, while others are assessed at notification. This is not blanket grandfathering. The survival of Article 43b and any separate CRR transitional treatment must be checked against the final adopted legislation.

Related Articles

• COREP Reporting Explained: how the COREP templates, including the securitisation set, fit together.
• Synthetic Risk Transfers and BCBS Capital Relief: the Basel Committee’s view of synthetic risk transfer and its capital effects.
• CRR3 Output Floor Phase-In 2026: how the output floor phases in and where securitisation transitionals sit.
• EBA Reporting Framework 4.4 Final Technical Package: how the EBA sequences COREP and FINREP template changes.
• EBA Supervisory Reporting Simplification: the EBA’s parallel effort to cut reporting burden.

Key Takeaways

• When the Official Journal text appears, diary the entry-into-force day it states and the ESAs’ deadline for draft disclosure standards (6 months later in the proposal’s bracketed text).
• Give one owner the public or private classification of every deal before the ESA template drafts appear; the proposed reporting category and investor access both depend on it, subject to the final definition and any exemptions.
• Check whether live deal files hold origination-date K_A, attachment points and pool WAL, and close the gaps before the CRR changes apply.
• Originators planning SRT trades for after entry into force should budget for a stressed self-assessment with a cash-flow model, with the detail left to EBA technical standards.
• Investment desks should record sell-side entity locations and secondary-market trade dates, the two inputs the proposed due diligence relief turns on.
• UCITS managers should re-test securitisation concentration limits once the final text fixes the raised investment limit.

Sources and References

• European Commission, “The Commission welcomes the political agreement reached on the review of the Securitisation Framework” (22 October 2026): finance.ec.europa.eu
• Council of the EU, “Savings and investments union: Council and Parliament strike deal to revitalise the EU’s securitisation market” (21 October 2026): consilium.europa.eu
• European Commission, “Commission proposes measures to revive the EU securitisation framework” (17 June 2025): finance.ec.europa.eu
• COM(2025) 826 final, proposal amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2402: EUR-Lex; Council register copy, document 10531/25: data.consilium.europa.eu
• Council of the EU, mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament on the Securitisation Regulation proposal, document 16740/25 (12 December 2025): data.consilium.europa.eu
• COM(2025) 825 final, proposal amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards securitisation exposures: EUR-Lex
• Council of the EU, mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament on the CRR securitisation proposal, document 16741/25 (12 December 2025): data.consilium.europa.eu
• European Parliament, Legislative Train Schedule, “Review of the securitisation framework” (records the Council position of 19 December 2025): europarl.europa.eu
• Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (Securitisation Regulation): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 (Prospectus Regulation), Article 3: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), consolidated version of 26 June 2026: EUR-Lex
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1224 (securitisation disclosure RTS): EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1225 (securitisation disclosure templates ITS): EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 (supervisory reporting ITS): EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451 (previous supervisory reporting ITS, superseded for COREP by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117; C 14.00 column 0021 instructions): EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3172 (Pillar 3 disclosure ITS): EUR-Lex; EBA ITS page: eba.europa.eu
• EBA, reporting frameworks overview: eba.europa.eu
• ESMA, report on simplification and burden reduction, ESMA22-1669215091-6873 (28 September 2026): esma.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 (LCR): EUR-Lex; Have Your Say initiative on securitisation exposures under the LCR Delegated Regulation: ec.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/269 (amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35, Solvency II): EUR-Lex
• Norton Rose Fulbright, Regulation Tomorrow, “European Parliament and Council reach agreement on securitisation framework review” (law-firm summary of the institutions’ statements, secondary source; cited only for the reported 5% floor, the reported CLO template and the reported ESMA supervisory role): regulationtomorrow.com

The next document to watch: the compromise text

The political agreement answers the direction question; the article numbers, the floor parameters, the SRT threshold and the entry-into-force day all arrive with the compromise text and then the Official Journal. The artifact worth producing before then is the deal-by-deal inventory set out in the data table above, ready to test against the final provisions on the day they are published.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.