4 Amendments of Fulvio MARTUSCIELLO related to 2017/2005(INI)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The issuance of covered bonds is an ordinary mean of funding and therefore within the full control of banks sound and prudent management policy. If a bank satisfies the prudential requirements set forth under the CRR/CRDIV rules, it should be allowed to issue covered bonds without any additional capital requirement condition. In this light all the obstacles to covered bonds issuance at a national level should be removed.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a clear definition of CBs in a European Directive; insists that the definition for securities henceforth called ‘covered bonds’ must not fall below the standards currently set by Article 129 of the CRR; requests that s or by Article 52(4) of the UCITS Directive; requests that UCITS compliant dual recourities incompatible with this definition but compatible with Article 52(4) of the UCITS Directivese instruments, with different requirements in terms of eligible cover assets, are properly defined in the same directive under a name clearly distinct from ‘covered bonds’; suggests that this name may be ‘European Secured Notes’; (ESNs);
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point e
Paragraph 4 – point e
e) Overcollateralisation (OC) is applied to the cover pool. By an extent to be determined in national law, the value of all cover pool assets must always be greater than the net present value of outstanding payment obligations. The value of cover pool assets is at all times to be determined on the basis of market prices when market prices are available and on the basis of face values adjusted for market conditions if no market prices are availablnominal value;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point f
Paragraph 4 – point f
f) European or national law defines maximum loan-to-value (LTV) parameters for cover pool assets in a way that ensures that the removal of cover pool assets on the grounds of insufficient LTV occurs only if they are replaced by other assets of at least the same marketnominal value. The removal of cover pool assets in breach of LTV limits should not be mandatory, as maximum LTV requirements should only determine the contribution of any given cover pool asset to the coverage requirement;