Response to consultation on the adjustment of own funds requirements and design of stress testing programmes for issuers under MiCAR
Question 1. Is the procedure clear and the timelines for the issuer to provide views on the assessment and submit the plan reasonable?
The procedure is clear and the 25 working days’ time limit for expressing their views is reasonable. However, AEFI considers that the deadline of 20 working days to submit the plan should be extended. This RTS does not only apply to significant tokens, but also to non-significant tokens. Most issuers are SMEs and have limited capacity to mobilise the resources needed to prepare such plans. The timing must be adapted to the nature of the issuers to ensure the quality of the plans. 30 working days would be a more appropriate timeframe.
Question 2. Are the timeframes for issuers to adjust to higher own funds requirements feasible?
NA
Question 3. During the period when own funds need to be increased by the issuer, should there be more restrictions on the issuer to ensure timely implementation of the additional own funds requirements, for example banning the issuance of further tokens?
AEFI is against banning the issuance of future tokens, as this would be an obstacle to the normal business of the issuer and could compromise its viability. If such obstacles are put in place during the timeframes set for the adjustment of capital requirements, the very nature of the timeframes will be undermined. Moreover, the RTS already recognises that the competent authority may set a shorter timeframe where this is justified by the materiality of the expected impact. In other words, the RTS already contains safeguards for cases where more immediate compliance with the requirements is needed.
Question 4. Do you agree with the criteria to identify if an issuer has a higher degree of risk?
The criteria set out in Article 3(c) of the RTS are excessively broad. In particular, the concepts of "significant deterioration" and "increases risk" are excessively ambiguous and leave too much room for discretion. AEFI considers that, in order to ensure greater certainty and harmonization in the assessment of the degree of risk among the competent authorities of the Member States, these criteria should be established in greater detail. Nevertheless, AEFI agrees with Policy Option B that there should also be room for a case-by-case approach of the competent authorities.
Question 5. Do you agree with the procedure to assess whether an issuer has a higher degree of risk?
NA
Question 6. Do you consider the criteria and their evaluation benchmarks sufficiently clear?
NA
Question 7. Do you agree with the need for a solvency and liquidity stress-test and the requirements of the stress-test?
AEFI understands the importance of solvency and liquidity tests. However, the adaptation and compliance costs are too high. The design of the stress testing programme and the methodology, common reference parameters and plausibility of assumptions are an excessive administrative burden, especially for non-significant tokens issuers. In this regard, AEFI considers that it would be positive to alleviate the burden if ESMA and/or the competent authorities were to develop a concrete model of stress testing programme.
Question 8. Do you agree with the frequency and time horizon of the solvency and liquidity stress-test? Should there be more differentiation between significant and not-significant issuers? Should the stress testing be more frequent for issuers of asset-referenced tokens referenced to official currencies?
The periodicity should be reviewed, and a clearer distinction should be made between issuers of significant tokens and issuers of non-significant tokens. AEFI proposes that, in line with solvency tests, liquidity tests should be less frequent and should differentiate between significant and non-significant token issuers, establishing a periodicity twice as long for the latter.
Question 9. Should a reverse stress testing requirements/methodology be introduced? Please provide your reasoning.
The administrative burden of the current requirements is already excessive, especially for non-significant token issuers. AEFI considers that, from a cost-benefit analysis, it would be detrimental to add new requirements.
Question 10. Do you have any other comments in relation to the stress-testing part in these RTS?
NA